Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
What:
On May 11, 1995, within the canvassing period of 1995 senatiorial elections, Aquilino
Pimintel, Jr., was informed that Arsenia Garcia (Arsenia), along with her co-conspirators,
willfully and unlawfully decreased the number of votes of the candidate from 6,998 to 1921
votes.
Pimintel filed a complaint against Asenia and her co-conspirators. All the accused was
acquited due to lack of evidence except for Arsenia who was found guilty of the crime
defined under Republic Act 6646, Section 27 (b) for decreasing the votes of Senator
Pimentel in the total of 5,034 and in relation to BP Blg. 881.
Petitioner appealed to CA which also affirmed the decision of the RTC.
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 Pimentel’s votes. Simply, Arsenia appealed to SC, contending that the
judgment of CA is erroneous 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.
When:
May 8, 1995 – elections (in the Municipality of Alaminos, Province of Pangasinan, PH)
May 11, 1995 – canvassing period
September 11, 2000 – Decision of the RTC; acquitted all the accused for insufficiency of
evidence, except for the petitioner who was convicted as follows:
Arsenia B. Garcia, the Court pronounces her GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, of the
crime defined under Republic Act 6646, Section 27 (b) for decreasing the votes of Senator
Pimentel in the total of 5,034 and in relation to BP Blg. 881, considering that this finding is a
violation of Election Offense, she is thus sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of SIX (6)
YEARS as maximum, but applying the INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, the minimum
penalty is the next degree lower which is SIX (6) MONTHS; however, accused Arsenia B.
Garcia is not entitled to probation; further, she is sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold
public office and she is also deprived of her right of suffrage.
ISSUES
(1) Whether or not a violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646, classified under
mala in se.
(2) Whether or not good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses?
HELD
(1) YES. Section 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 provides: Any member of the board of
election inspectors or board of canvassers who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes
received by a 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 Section 27(b) are mala in se. For otherwise, even errors and
mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable.
(2) NO. Public policy dictates that extraordinary diligence should be exercised by the
members of the board of canvassers in canvassing the results of the elections. Any error on
their part would result in the disenfranchisement of the voters. The Certificate of Canvass
for senatorial candidates and its supporting statements of votes prepared by the municipal
board of canvassers are sensitive election documents whose entries must be thoroughly
scrutinized.
The instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining
petitioner’s conviction but increasing the minimum penalty in her sentence to one year
instead of six months is AFFIRMED.
Crime charged: child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610
RTC: found and declared the petitioner guilty of child abuse as charged
CA: affirmed the conviction, but modified the penalty
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner was guilty of the crime charged and that even assuming that
he was guilty, his liability should be mitigated because he had merely acted to protect her
two minor daughters (ONLY SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES; PENALTY IS MITIGATED)
HELD
Although the Court affirms the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA to the effect
that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, it
disagrees with their holding that his acts constituted child abuse within the purview of
Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610.
The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson
had been intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and dignity” of Jayson as a human being,
or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the
laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger,
indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of
his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan.
With the loss of his selfcontrol, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime
of child abuse.
It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo, every doubt is
resolved in favor of the petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider all
possible circumstances in his favor. Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five to
seven days of medical attention, the petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries under
Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from one day to 30
days of imprisonment. In imposing the correct penalty, however, the Court has to consider
the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13(6) of the Revised
Penal Code, because the petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the
exercise of his will power. It is relevant to mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation, the
offender suffers a diminution of intelligence and intent.
Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum period in the absence of any aggravating
circumstance that offset the mitigating circumstance of passion. Accordingly, with the
Indeterminate Sentence Law being inapplicable due to the penalty imposed not exceeding
one year, the petitioner shall suffer a straight penalty of 10 days of arresto menor.
QUICK RECAP
Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse
under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610.1 Only when the laying of hands is shown
beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child
abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code. In this case, records showed
that the laying of hands on Jayson have been done at the spur of moment and in anger,
indicative of his being overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his
own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and his
companion. With the lost of his self-control, he lacked the specific intent to debase,
degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being that was
so essential in the crime of the child abuse. However, considering that Jayson suffered
physical injury requiring five to seven days of medical attention, Bongalon is liable for slight
physical injuries under Art.266 (1) of the RPC.