G.R. No. 157171 – 519 Phil. 591 – 484 SCRA 617 – Criminal Law – Book 1 – Felonies – Mala In Se vs Mala Prohibita Crimes – Defense of Good Faith
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.
HELD: 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.
