Garcia vs.

CA

Facts

The accused who was an election officer of Pangasinan, was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and convicted for the violation of Election Offense
as defined under RA 6646, section 27, decreasing the votes of Senator
Pimentel in the total of P5,034 votes.

The petitioner appealed before the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC
and increasing the minimum penalty imposed from 6 months to 1 year.

The petitioner contends that the CA’s judgement is erroneous and there is 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 election law which falls under mala prohibita.

Issue: WON the violation of section 27 of RA 6646 classified as mala en se or

mala prohibita and WON good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid
defenses.

(b) 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.

Held:

The acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se because this act is
considered as inherently immoral. Hence, even if the act is punishable by a
special law, if it is inherently immoral, then it is still mala en se.

Criminal intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who executes
which the law punishes, unless contrary to appear. Thus, whoever invokes
good faith as the defense has the burden of proving its existence. The court
found that the appellant failure to exercise maximum efficiency and fidelity to
her trust deserves not only censure but also the concomitant sanctions as a
matter of criminal responsibility pursuant to the dictates of the law.

People vs. Garcia

Facts:

The accused, who is a passenger jeepney driver, hit the deceased named
Sanily while crossing the street on their way to the school. The girl fell and
was thrown a meter away from the jeepney. The jeepney stop but the
vehicle suddenly accelerated with its front tire running over Sanily’s stomach.
Sanily’s sister and the appellant brought her to a hospital but due to lack of
medical facilities she was transferred to another where she was operated.
She died after four days.

The trial court rendered judgement finding the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Murder. The accused filed an appeal raising that the trial
court gravely erred in finding that the appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of crime of murder and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of
evident premediation.

Issue: Whether or not the appellant held guilty of murder or reckless

imprudence resulting to homicide?

Held: The court of appeal reversed and set aside the judgement that the
appellant is guilty of the crime of murder and is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.

The court find that there are no sufficient time elapsed for appellant to
decide to commit the crime and reflect of its consequences and evaluation of
the evidence reveals that the appellant had no intention to kill the victim.

People vs Delim

Facts:

The accused armed with short firearms barged-in and entered the house of
Modesto Delim and once inside willfully, unlawfully and feloniously grab,
hold, hogtie, gag with a piece of cloth, brought out and abduct Modesto
Delim. The accused Leon and Manuel Delim stayed in the house guarded and
prevented the wife and son of Modesto Delim from helping the latter.
Thereafter with abuse of superior strength stabbed and killed said Modesto
Delim, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs

Diego Vs Castillo

Facts:

In 1965, the accused Escoto got married to De Perio, both Filipinos, in

Dagupan City. In 1978, a decree of divorce was issued to Perio, the
petitioner , in Texas, declaring the divorce of his marriage with Escoto. In
1987, Escoto got married with Diego. Diego’s sister filed a case of bigamy
against Escoto. The respondent judge acquitted the accused on the main
basis was the defense of the accused that she acted without any malicious
intent and believing in good faith of the nullity of her marriage as served by
the decree of divorce issued in texas. The petitioner filed an administrative
case against the respondent for rendering unjust judgement and acquitting
the accused.

Issues: Whether or not the respondent judge guilty of administrative case?