GARCIA V.

CA
G.R. No. 157171 March 14, 2006
QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS:
Aquilino Pimentel Jr. who ran for the 1995 senatorial elections charged the petitioners with her
co-conspirators with the violation of Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646. The information
stated that votes received by Pimentel, Jr. were decreased from 6,998 to 1,921 votes with a
difference of 5,077 votes. RTC acquitted all the accused for insufficiency of evidence, except
petitioner.

The petitioner appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of RTC with modification on the
minimum penalty.

So this petition by the petitioner contending that the Court of Appeals’ judgment is erroneous,
based on speculations, surmises and conjectures, instead of substantial evidence; and there was
no motive on her part to reduce the votes of private complainant.

Respondent on the other hand contends that good faith is not a defense in the violation of an
election law, which falls under the class of mala prohibita.

ISSUE:
Whether or not good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses?

RULING:
No. It is not a valid defense.

Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy.
Section 27(b) of RA 6646 stipulated the election offense for those who increase or decrease the
votes of the candidate. The mere decreasing of the votes received by a candidate in an election
is already punishable under the said provision. Thus, whoever invokes good faith as a defense
has the burden of proving its existence.

In the case at bar, Garcia’s defense of good faith was not proven. Facts show that the decreasing
of Pimentel’s vote was not due to error or mistake. Preparing the COC even if it was not her task,
manifests an intention to perpetuate the erroneous entry in the COC.

The petition was and the decision of CA was affirmed.