Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

A violation of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646, which penalizes a member of the board of canvassers for decreasing the votes received by a candidate, is classified as mala in se, such that criminal intent is an essential element, and good faith and lack of criminal intent are valid defenses, provided they are successfully proven by the accused.

During the May 8, 1995 elections, Arsenia B. Garcia served as Chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers in Alaminos, Pangasinan. After votes from 159 precincts were tallied, a substantial discrepancy of 5,000 votes was discovered in the Statement of Votes and Certificate of Canvass for senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., reducing his total from 6,921 (or 6,998 based on subtotals) to 1,921.

• The Canvassing Process: Votes from 159 precincts were forwarded to the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Garcia (Chairman) read figures from precinct results, Viray (Secretary) entered them in Statements of Votes (SOV). Tabulators Palisoc and de Vera added votes using machines, handed tapes to Garcia, who read subtotals to Viray for entry. Tabulators then added subtotals for the grand total, handed the tape to Garcia, who read it to Viray for entry in the SOV.
• The Discrepancy: SOV Nos. 008417 to 008422 subtotals were not disputed. However, in SOV No. 008423, the grand total for Pimentel was only 1,921 instead of 6,921—a decrease of 5,000 votes. This erroneous figure was carried over to Certificate of Canvass (COC) No. 436156.
• Petitioner's Actions: Garcia admitted she announced the 1,921 figure read from the machine tape. She also admitted preparing the COC, though it was the Secretary's duty. A minor discrepancy of 77 votes between the actual votes (6,998) and the subtotals (6,921) was attributed to mistake or fatigue, but the 5,000-vote reduction was deemed substantial and intentional.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals’ judgment was erroneous, based on speculations, surmises, and conjectures rather than substantial evidence.
• Lack of Criminal Intent: Petitioner maintained that the reduction of votes was not willful or intentional, and that she had no motive to reduce Pimentel's votes, noting the missing 5,000 votes were not added to any other candidate.

• Nature of the Offense: Respondent countered that good faith and lack of criminal intent are not valid defenses because the violation of Section 27(b) of RA 6646 is an offense mala prohibita.

• Classification of the Offense: Whether a violation of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 is classified as mala in se or mala prohibita.
• Validity of Defenses: Whether good faith and lack of criminal intent are valid defenses against a charge of decreasing votes under Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646.

• Classification of the Offense: The offense is classified as mala in se. Intentionally increasing or decreasing votes is inherently immoral, done with malice and intent to injure. If classified as mala prohibita, even unintentional errors due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable, which could not have been the legislature's intent.
• Validity of Defenses: Good faith and lack of criminal intent are valid defenses because the offense is mala in se. However, criminal intent is presumed from the execution of the unlawful act. Petitioner failed to rebut this presumption. Her announcement of the 1,921 figure and her preparation of the COC—which was not her duty—manifested an intention to perpetuate the erroneous entry. The fact that the 5,000 votes were not transferred to another candidate does not relieve liability, as the mere decreasing of votes is already punishable.

• Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita in Election Law — Acts punished under special laws are generally mala prohibita, but when the acts are inherently immoral (such as intentionally tampering with election results), they are deemed mala in se, requiring criminal intent. Unintentional errors or miscalculations by election canvassers due to fatigue are not punishable. The Court applied this to classify the intentional decrease of votes under Sec. 27(b) of RA 6646 as mala in se.
• Presumption of Intent — Criminal intent is presumed to exist from the execution of an act punished by law, unless the contrary appears. The burden of proving good faith rests on the invoker. The Court applied this to hold that petitioner's acts of announcing the erroneous total and preparing the COC manifested intent, failing to overcome the presumption.

• "Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se. For otherwise, even errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable. ... However, 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."
• "The mere decreasing of the votes received by a candidate in an election is already punishable under the said provision."

• Domalanta v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 125586, 334 SCRA 555 (2000) — Followed for the proposition that acts under Section 27(b) are mala in se and that extraordinary diligence must be exercised by members of the board of canvassers.
• United States v. Apostol, 14 Phil 92 (1909) — Followed for the rule that criminal intent is presumed from the execution of a prohibited act.

• Section 27(b), Republic Act No. 6646 — Penalizes any member of the board of election inspectors or board of canvassers who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes received by a candidate. Applied to hold petitioner liable for decreasing Pimentel's votes.
• Rule 131, Sec. 3(b), Rules of Court — Provides the presumption that a person intends the ordinary consequences of their acts. Applied to presume criminal intent from petitioner's execution of the prohibited act.

Carpio, Carpio Morales, Tinga