Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 521 views

    Garcia Vs CA PDF

    Uploaded by

    meh
    The Supreme Court ruled that violation of Section 27(b) of RA No. 6646, which penalizes intentionally decreasing a candidate's votes, is a malum in se crime. Malum in se crimes are defined as inherently immoral acts that are considered criminal offenses in themselves. Decreasing a candidate's votes without their consent is inherently immoral. While most special laws define malum prohibitum offenses, the Electoral Reforms Law punishes malum in se conduct. The defendant, Arsenia Garcia, was found guilty of intentionally facilitating the decreasing of senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr.'s votes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garcia Vs CA PDF

    Uploaded by

    meh
    521 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that violation of Section 27(b) of RA No. 6646, which penalizes intentionally decreasing a candidate's votes, is a malum in se crime. Malum in se crimes are defined as inherently immoral acts that are considered criminal offenses in themselves. Decreasing a candidate's votes without their consent is inherently immoral. While most special laws define malum prohibitum offenses, the Electoral Reforms Law punishes malum in se conduct. The defendant, Arsenia Garcia, was found guilty of intentionally facilitating the decreasing of senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr.'s votes.

    Original Title

    Garcia-vs-CA.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that violation of Section 27(b) of RA No. 6646, which penalizes intentionally decreasing a candidate's votes, is a malum in se crime. Malum in se crimes are defined as inherently immoral acts that are considered criminal offenses in themselves. Decreasing a candidate's votes without their consent is inherently immoral. While most special laws define malum prohibitum offenses, the Electoral Reforms Law punishes malum in se conduct. The defendant, Arsenia Garcia, was found guilty of intentionally facilitating the decreasing of senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr.'s votes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    521 views1 page

    Garcia Vs CA PDF

    Uploaded by

    meh
    The Supreme Court ruled that violation of Section 27(b) of RA No. 6646, which penalizes intentionally decreasing a candidate's votes, is a malum in se crime. Malum in se crimes are defined as inherently immoral acts that are considered criminal offenses in themselves. Decreasing a candidate's votes without their consent is inherently immoral. While most special laws define malum prohibitum offenses, the Electoral Reforms Law punishes malum in se conduct. The defendant, Arsenia Garcia, was found guilty of intentionally facilitating the decreasing of senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr.'s votes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    GARCIA VS.

    CA
    14 March 2006

    G.R. No. 157171, 484 SCRA 617
    QUISUMBING


    PRINCIPLES INVOLVED: Malum prohibitum as exception to the requirement of mens rea


    RELEVANT LAWS CITED: Article 3, RPC and RA 6646

    FACTS:
    On or about About May 11, 1995, which was within the canvassing period during the
    May 8, 1995 elections, Arsenia B. Garcia – Election Office, Herminio R. Romero – Municipal
    Treasurer, Renato R. Viray – Public School district surpervisor, Chairman, Vice Chairman, and
    Member Secretary of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos, Pangasinan and Rachel
    Palisoc & Francisca De Vera – Tabulator, conspired, confederated, and willfully and unlawfully
    decreased the votes received by senatorial candidate, Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. From 6,998 to
    1,921 as reflected in the Statement of Votes by Precincts with Serial No. 008423 and Certificate
    of Canvass with Serial No. 436156 with a difference of 5,077 votes. The RTC acquitted all the
    accused in a decision due to insufficiency of evidence, except Arsenia B. Garcia who was
    pronounced GUILTY of the crime defined under RA 6646, Section 27(b) and violation of
    Election Offense.

    ISSUE:
    I. Whether or not violation of Section 27(b) of RA No. 6646 is classified under mala in se or
    mala prohibita.

    RULING:

    Generally, mala in se felonies are defined and penalized in the Revised Penal Code. When the
    acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished
    by a special law. Electoral Reforms Law is a mala in se crime because it is inherently immoral to
    decrease the vote of a candidate. What is being punished is the intentional decreasing of a
    candidate’s votes and not those arising from errors and mistakes. She amenably accepted certain
    duties, which were not supposed to be hers to perform. Hence, a clear sign that she facilitated the
    erroneous entry.

    You might also like