Scribd
Upload
79 views1 page

5 Garcia Vs CA

1) Petitioner Garcia was convicted of violating Section 27(b) of the Electoral Reform Law of 1997 for willfully decreasing the votes received by a senatorial candidate by 5,077 votes during a vote canvassing period. 2) The issue is whether the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are considered mala in se or mala prohibita. 3) The Court held that the acts are mala in se because intentionally increasing or decreasing votes is inherently immoral as it is done with malice and intent to injure another, even if punishable by special law. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Rex
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views1 page

5 Garcia Vs CA

1) Petitioner Garcia was convicted of violating Section 27(b) of the Electoral Reform Law of 1997 for willfully decreasing the votes received by a senatorial candidate by 5,077 votes during a vote canvassing period. 2) The issue is whether the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are considered mala in se or mala prohibita. 3) The Court held that the acts are mala in se because intentionally increasing or decreasing votes is inherently immoral as it is done with malice and intent to injure another, even if punishable by special law. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Rex
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

5 Garcia vs.

CA 484 SCRA 617, March 14, 2006

Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeal’s decision affirming the
lower court’s decision of the conviction of petitioner Garcia for violation of Section 27(b) of
Republic Act No. 6646 or the Electoral Reform Law of 1997.

On May 11, 1995, during the canvassing period of the 1995 elections, petitioner Arsenia
V. Garcia, as election officer of Alaminos, Panagasinan, willfully and unlawfully decreased the
votes received by senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. by five thousand seventy-seven
(5,077) votes. Petitioner was found guilty of violating Section 27(b) of RA No. 6646 by the
RTC.

Petitioner contended that there was no motive on her part to reduce the votes.

Issue:
Whether the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646 are classified
as mala  in se or mala prohibita.

Held:
The acts prohibited in Section 27(b) of RA No. 6646 are mala in se. Even though the act
is punishable by a special law, intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes is
inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and intent to injure another. Given the volume of
votes to be counted, errors and mistakes could be committed. It is not the intent of the law to
punish unintentional election mistakes.

Petitioner admitted being the announcer for the votes and prepared the Certificate of
Canvass (COC) though not her duty to do so. This manifested an intention to perpetrate the
erroneous entry in the COC. The petitioner’s conviction is affirmed by the CA.

To sum, when an act is punished by a special law, but is inherently immoral, it shall be
considered as mala in se.

You might also like