PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SUNICO; C.A., 50 O.G. 5880
FACTS:
The accused were employees of COMELEC whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of the newly created precincts. There were several voters that were omitted in the list, therefore, were not allowed to vote. The accused was prosecuted for violations of Section. 101 and Section 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith. The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter criminally responsible therefore, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the act of the accused is merely a mala prohibita?
RULING:
The acts of the accused cannot be mala prohibita – they are mala in se. The omission or failure to include a voter’s name in the registry list of voters is not only wrong because it is prohibited; it is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one of his fundamental rights. Hence,for such act to be punishable, it must be shown that it has been committed with malice. There is no clear showing in the instant case that the accused intentionally, willfully and maliciously omitted or failed to include in the registry list of voters the names of those voters. They cannot be punished criminally.
+ the Revised Election Code, as far
as its penal provisions are concerned, is a special law, it being not a part of
the RPC or its amendments.
0 comments: