519 Phil. 591
QUISUMBING, J.
That on or about May 11, 1995, which was within the canvassing period during the May 8, 1995 elections, in the Municipality of Alaminos, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Election Officer Arsenia B. Garcia, Municipal Treasurer Herminio R. Romero, Public School District Supervisor Renato R. Viray, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Member-Secretary, respectively, of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos, Pangasinan, tabulators Rachel Palisoc and Francisca de Vera, conspiring with, confederating together and mutually helping each other, did, then and there, willfully, and unlawfully decrease[d] the votes received by senatorial candidate Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. from six thousand nine hundred ninety-eight (6,998) votes, as clearly disclosed in the total number of votes in the one hundred fifty-nine (159) precincts of the Statement of Votes by Precincts of said municipality, with Serial Nos. 008417, 008418, 008419, 008420, 008421, 008422 and 008423 to one thousand nine hundred twenty-one (1,921) votes as reflected in the Statement of Votes by Precincts with Serial No. 008423 and Certificate of Canvass with Serial No. 436156 with a difference of five thousand seventy-seven (5,077) votes.CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Petitioner appealed before the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the RTC Decision, thus,x x x
- And finally, on the person of Arsenia B. Garcia, the Court pronounces her GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime defined under Republic Act 6646, Section 27 (b) for decreasing the votes of Senator Pimentel in the total of 5,034 and in relation to BP Blg. 881, considering that this finding is a violation of Election Offense, she is thus sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS as maximum, but applying the INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, the minimum penalty is the next degree lower which is SIX (6) MONTHS; however, accused Arsenia B. Garcia is not entitled to probation; further, she is sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and she is also deprived of her right of suffrage.
The bailbond posted by her is hereby ordered cancelled, and the Provincial Warden is ordered to commit her person to the Bureau of Correctional Institution for Women, at Metro Manila, until further orders from the court.
No pronouncement as to costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[5]
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed with modification, increasing the minimum penalty imposed by the trial court from six (6) months to one (1) year.The Court of Appeals likewise denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence, this appeal assigning the following as errors of the appellate court:
SO ORDERED.[6]
Petitioner contends that (1) the Court of Appeals' judgment is erroneous, based on speculations, surmises and conjectures, instead of substantial evidence; and (2) there was no motive on her part to reduce the votes of private complainant.I
ON THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUNDS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT COURT, NAMELY, THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SECRETARY VIRAY WHO DECREASED THE VOTES OF COMPLAINANT PIMENTEL SINCE HE MERELY RELIED ON WHAT THE PETITIONER DICTATED, AND THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE ALSO BEEN THE TABULATORS BECAUSE PETITIONER WAS THE ONE WHO READ THE ADDING [MACHINE] TAPE.II
ON THE THIRD GROUND, NAMELY, THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PRODUCE THE TAPES DURING THE TRIAL BECAUSE IF PRODUCED, IT IS GOING TO BE ADVERSE TO HER.III
ON THE FOURTH GROUND, NAMELY, THAT THE PETITIONER WAS THE ONE WHO ENTERED THE REDUCED FIGURE OF 1,921 IN THE CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS (COC), Exh. "7", WHEN THE DUTY WAS THAT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD.IV
THE REDUCTION OF THE VOTES OF CANDIDATE PIMENTEL WAS CLEARLY NOT WILLFUL OR INTENTIONAL.[7]
SEC. 27. Election Offenses.— In addition to the prohibited acts and election offenses enumerated in Sections 261 and 262 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended, the following shall be guilty of an election offense:Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se.[12] For otherwise, even errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable. Given the volume of votes to be counted and canvassed within a limited amount of time, errors and miscalculations are bound to happen. And it could not be the intent of the law to punish unintentional election canvass errors. However, intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate is inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and intent to injure another.x x x
(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.x x x
Neither the correctness of the number of votes entered in the Statement of Votes (SOV) for each precinct, nor of the number of votes entered as subtotals of votes received in the precincts listed in SOV Nos. 008417 to 008422 was raised as an issue.
- After the votes in the 159 precincts of the municipality of Alaminos were tallied, the results thereof were sealed and forwarded to the Municipal Board of Canvassers for canvassing;
- The number of votes received by each candidate in each precinct was then recorded in the Statement of Votes with appellant, in her capacity as Chairman, reading the figures appearing in the results from the precincts and accused Viray, in his capacity as secretary of the Board, entering the number in the Statements of Votes as read by the appellant. Six Statements of Votes were filled up to reflect the votes received by each candidate in the 159 precincts of the Municipality of Alaminos, Pangasinan.
- After the number of votes received by each candidate for each precincts were entered by accused Viray in the Statements of Votes, these votes were added by the accused Palisoc and de Vera with the use of electrical adding machines.
- After the tabulation by accused Palisoc and de Vera, the corresponding machine tapes were handed to appellant who reads the subtotal of votes received by each candidate in the precincts listed in each Statement of Votes. Accused Viray [then] records the subtotal in the proper column in the Statement of Votes.
- After the subtotals had been entered by accused Viray, tabulators accused Palisoc and de Vera added all the subtotals appearing in all Statement of Votes.
- After the computation, the corresponding machine tape on which the grand total was reflected was handed to appellant who reads the same and accused Viray enters the figure read by appellant in the column for grand total in the Statement of Votes.[14]
x x x(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.
Statement of Votes | Votes Based on SOV Subtotals | Votes per SOV |
008417 | 1,131 | 1,174 |
008418 | 1,068 | 1,068 |
008419 | 1,139 | 1,139 |
008420 | 864 | 864 |
008421 | 1,137 | 1,171 |
008422 | 1,090 | 1,090 |
008423 | 492 | 492 |
TOTAL | 6,921 | 6,998 |