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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Case Digest - Garcia v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Dawn Ybalez
    Violation of Section 27(b) of RA 6646, which prohibits intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate, is considered mala in se because such acts are inherently immoral. Criminal intent must therefore be established along with the other elements of the crime. While good faith and lack of criminal intent can be valid defenses, the burden of proving these rests with the accused. In this case, the petitioner admitted preparing the certificate of canvass with inaccurate vote totals, even though it was not her duty, indicating an intention to perpetuate the erroneous entry.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest - Garcia v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Dawn Ybalez
    10 views2 pages
    Violation of Section 27(b) of RA 6646, which prohibits intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate, is considered mala in se because such acts are inherently immoral. Criminal intent must therefore be established along with the other elements of the crime. While good faith and lack of criminal intent can be valid defenses, the burden of proving these rests with the accused. In this case, the petitioner admitted preparing the certificate of canvass with inaccurate vote totals, even though it was not her duty, indicating an intention to perpetuate the erroneous entry.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Violation of Section 27(b) of RA 6646, which prohibits intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate, is considered mala in se because such acts are inherently immoral. Criminal intent must therefore be established along with the other elements of the crime. While good faith and lack of criminal intent can be valid defenses, the burden of proving these rests with the accused. In this case, the petitioner admitted preparing the certificate of canvass with inaccurate vote totals, even though it was not her duty, indicating an intention to perpetuate the erroneous entry.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    10 views2 pages

    Case Digest - Garcia v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Dawn Ybalez
    Violation of Section 27(b) of RA 6646, which prohibits intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate, is considered mala in se because such acts are inherently immoral. Criminal intent must therefore be established along with the other elements of the crime. While good faith and lack of criminal intent can be valid defenses, the burden of proving these rests with the accused. In this case, the petitioner admitted preparing the certificate of canvass with inaccurate vote totals, even though it was not her duty, indicating an intention to perpetuate the erroneous entry.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ATTY.

    ED ESPINA – CRIMINAL LAW 1

    ARSENIA GARCIA, Petitioner, vs.


    CA and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents

    G.R. NO. 157171 | March 14, 2006

    Justice Quisumbing

    Topic: Definition of Felony (Article 3)

    FACTS:

    Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., who ran in the 1995 senatorial elections, filed a case before the
    RTC of Alaminos against Arsenia Garcia and four others for violation of RA 6646,
    Section 27(b). In a Decision dated September 11, 2000, the RTC acquitted all the
    accused for insufficiency of evidence, except petitioner Garcia who was convicted
    and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime defined under RA 6646,
    Section 27(b) for decreasing the votes of Senator Pimentel and violation of Election
    Offense.

    Petitioner appealed before the CA which affirmed with modification the RTC
    decision. The CA likewise denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, this appeal.

    ISSUE/S:

    1. Whether or not a violation of Section 27(b) of RA 6646, classified under mala


    in se or mala prohibita.
    2. Whether or not good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses for
    violation of RA 6646.

    RULING:

    1. Violation of Section 27(b) of RA 6646 is mala in se because the acts


    complained of is inherently immoral. Accordingly, criminal intent must be
    clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is
    committed. Intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes
    received by a candidate is inherently immoral, since it is done with malice
    and intent to injure another.

    As between the grand total of votes alleged to have been received by private
    complainant of 6,921 votes and statement of his actual votes received of 6,998
    is a difference of 77 votes. The discrepancy may be validly attributed to
    mistake or error due to fatigue. However, a decrease of 5,000 votes as
    reflected in the Statement of Votes and Certificate of Canvass is substantial, it
    cannot be allowed to remain on record unchallenged, especially when the
    error results from the mere transfer of totals from one document to another.

    YBALEZ D.| Case Digest


    ATTY. ED ESPINA – CRIMINAL LAW 1

    2. Good faith and lack of criminal intent is a valid defense for violations of RA
    6646 however the burden of proof rests in the person invoking it. Criminal
    intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes an act
    which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear. Thus, whoever
    invokes good faith as a defense has the burden of proving its existence.

    In the case at bar, petitioner admitted that she was indeed the one who
    announced the figure and prepared the COC (Exhibit A-7), though it was not
    her duty. The Court believed that preparing the COC even if it was not her
    task, manifests an intention to perpetuate the erroneous entry in the COC.

    PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINE:

    Criminal Law; Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita Distinguished.—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. Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established
    with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the other
    hand, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral
    but become punishable only because the law says they are forbidden. With these
    crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated. Criminal intent is not
    necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy.

    Mala in Se; Election Law; Acts prohibited in Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646
    are mala in se. Intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received
    by a candidate is inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and intent to injure
    another. Criminal intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes
    an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear.

    YBALEZ D.| Case Digest

    You might also like