Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    5.) Garcia v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    1) Arsenia Garcia was accused of violating the Electoral Reforms Law by intentionally decreasing the vote count of senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr. by 5,000 votes during the 1995 elections. 2) Garcia argued her defense of good faith, claiming fatigue from her workload caused errors. Pimentel argued the violation was malum prohibitum and good faith cannot be a defense. 3) The court ruled Garcia's violation was malum in se, as intentionally decreasing a candidate's votes is inherently immoral, and good faith can be a defense. However, Garcia did not sufficiently prove her good faith defense, as facts showed she willingly took on duties to facilitate the erroneous entry.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    5.) Garcia v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    22 views1 page
    1) Arsenia Garcia was accused of violating the Electoral Reforms Law by intentionally decreasing the vote count of senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr. by 5,000 votes during the 1995 elections. 2) Garcia argued her defense of good faith, claiming fatigue from her workload caused errors. Pimentel argued the violation was malum prohibitum and good faith cannot be a defense. 3) The court ruled Garcia's violation was malum in se, as intentionally decreasing a candidate's votes is inherently immoral, and good faith can be a defense. However, Garcia did not sufficiently prove her good faith defense, as facts showed she willingly took on duties to facilitate the erroneous entry.

    Original Title

    5.) Garcia v. CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Arsenia Garcia was accused of violating the Electoral Reforms Law by intentionally decreasing the vote count of senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr. by 5,000 votes during the 1995 elections. 2) Garcia argued her defense of good faith, claiming fatigue from her workload caused errors. Pimentel argued the violation was malum prohibitum and good faith cannot be a defense. 3) The court ruled Garcia's violation was malum in se, as intentionally decreasing a candidate's votes is inherently immoral, and good faith can be a defense. However, Garcia did not sufficiently prove her good faith defense, as facts showed she willingly took on duties to facilitate the erroneous entry.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    22 views1 page

    5.) Garcia v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    1) Arsenia Garcia was accused of violating the Electoral Reforms Law by intentionally decreasing the vote count of senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr. by 5,000 votes during the 1995 elections. 2) Garcia argued her defense of good faith, claiming fatigue from her workload caused errors. Pimentel argued the violation was malum prohibitum and good faith cannot be a defense. 3) The court ruled Garcia's violation was malum in se, as intentionally decreasing a candidate's votes is inherently immoral, and good faith can be a defense. However, Garcia did not sufficiently prove her good faith defense, as facts showed she willingly took on duties to facilitate the erroneous entry.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    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.

    You might also like