Garcia v. CA, GR No.

157171, March 14, 2006

Facts:

In 1995, Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., ran for the senatorial elections. Meanwhile, in Alaminos,
Pangasinan, Arsenia Garcia was one of the designated election officers. Garcia was accused by
Pimentel of violating the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987. Pimentel alleged that Garcia
decreased Pimentel’s vote by 5,000 votes. 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. Pimentel argued that the
Electoral Reforms Law is a special law hence it is a malum prohibitum law and therefore, good
faith is not a defense.

Issue:

Whether or not the alleged violation of Garcia of the Electoral Reforms Law is a malum
prohibitum.

Ruling:

No. Generally, mala in se crimes refer to those felonies in violation of the Revised Penal Code.
However, it must be noted that mala in se are crimes which are inherently immoral. Hence, even
if the crime is punished by a special law, if it is inherently immoral, then it is still a crime mala in
se. In this case, the said violation of the Electoral Reforms Law is a mala in se crime because it
is inherently immoral to decrease the vote of a candidate. Note also that what is being punished
is the intentional decreasing of a candidate’s votes and not those arising from errors and
mistakes. Since a violation of this special law is a malum in se, good faith can be raised as a
defense. However, 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. It was shown that she willingly
handled certain duties which were not supposed to be hers to perform. That’s a clear sign that
she facilitated the erroneous entry.