Garcia v.

CA
G.R. No. 157171. March 14, 2006
(484 SCRA 617)

Arsenia Garcia, petitioner vs. Honorable Court of Appeals and People of the
Philippines, respondents
Facts: The petitioner was charged and convicted for violating Section 27(b) of Republic
Act No. 6646 case, wherein she raise the defense of lack of intent and good faith. The
accused, Election- Officer Arsenia B. Garcia and co., conspiring with, confederating
together and mutually helping each other, willfully and unlawfully decreased the number
of votes received by senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. from 6,998 votes as
clearly disclosed in the total number of votes in 159 precincts of the Statement of Votes
by Precincts to 1,921 votes, with a difference of 5,077 votes. The trial court found
Garcia guilty. On appeal, Garcia invoked that the trial court erred in ruling that her
defense of good faith was not properly appreciated. She averred that due to the
workload given to her during said elections, she got fatigued and that caused the error
in the tabulation of Pimentels votes. Pimentel argued that the Electoral Reforms Law is
a special law hence it is a malum prohibitum law and therefore, good faith is not a
defense.The RTC acquitted all the accused for insufficiency of evidence, except Garcia.
Petitioner then appealed before the Court of Appeals which affirmed the RTC decision
with modifications.
ISSUE: Whether or not the violation of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No.6646 is under
mala in se or mala prohibita
RULING: The instant petition is denied. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
sustaining petitioners conviction but increasing the minimum penalty in her sentence to
one year of six months is affirmed.

Ratio:
It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court defined differentiates mala in se and mala
prohibita, wherein the former are inherently immoral, while the latter are not inherently
immoral but becomes punishable by legislative intent. Also although the subject law at
the present case is a special law the same was deemed to be a mala in se since the
act or omission punished are inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and intent
to injure another.
Mala in se felonies are defined and penalized in the Revised Penal Code, while Mala
Prohibita are those deemed inherently immoral, even punished by special law. Section
27(b) of RA No. 6646 provides that Any member of the board of election inspectors or
board of canvassers who tampers, increases or decreases the votes received by the
candidate in any election or any member of the board who refuses, after proper
verification and hearing, to credit the correct votes or deduct such tampered votes.
Clearly, the acts prohibited in the said RA are mala in se. Criminal intent is presumed to
exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes.
In this case, the said violation of the Electoral Reforms Law is a mala in se crime
because it is inherently immoral to decrease the vote of a candidate. Note also that
what is being punished is the intentional decreasing of a candidates votes and not
those arising from errors and mistakes. Since a violation of this special law is a malum
in se, good faith can be raised as a defense.
However, Garcias defense of good faith was not proven. Facts show that the
decreasing of Pimentels vote was not due to error or mistake. It was shown that she
willingly handled certain duties which were not supposed to be hers to perform. Thats a
clear sign that she facilitated the erroneous entry.