The omission or failure to include a voter’sname in the registry list of voters is not onlywrong because it is prohibited; it is wrong perse because it disenfranchises a voter andviolates one of his fundamental rights. Hence,for such act to be punishable, it must be shownthat it has been committed with malice. Thereis no clear showing in the instant case that theaccused intentionally, willfully and maliciouslyomitted or failed to include in the registry list ofvoters the names of those voters. They cannotbe punished criminally.
the Revised Election Code, as far as its penalprovisions are concerned, is a special law, itbeing not a part of the RPC or its amendments.
ACT 3326 - AN ACT TO ESTABLISHPERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FORVIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY SPECIALACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES ANDTO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALLBEGIN TO RUN
Section 1. Violations penalized by special actsshall, unless otherwise provided in such acts,prescribe in accordance with the followingrules:
after a year for offenses punished only by afine or by imprisonment for not more than onemonth, or both;
after four years for those punished byimprisonment for more than one month, butless than two years;
after eight years for those punished byimprisonment for two years or more, but lessthan six years; and
after twelve years for any other offensepunished by imprisonment for six years ormore, except the crime of treason, which shallprescribe after twenty years. Provided,however, That all offenses against any law orpart of law administered by the Bureau ofInternal Revenue shall prescribe after fiveyears. Violations penalized by municipalordinances shall prescribe after two months.(As amended by Act No. 3585 and by Act No.3763, approved November 23, 1930.)Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from theday of the commission of the violation of thelaw, and if the same be not known at the time,from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its investigation andpunishment.The prescription shall be interruptedwhen proceedings are instituted against theguilty person, and shall begin to run again ifthe proceedings are dismissed for reasons notconstituting jeopardy.Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, specialacts shall be acts defining and penalizingviolations of the law not included in the PenalCode.Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect on itsapproval.Approved: December 4, 1926
Panaguiton Jr vs Department of Justice G.R. No. 167571November 25, 2008
:Based from the facts culled from the records, in1992, Rodrigo Cawili borrowed various sums ofmoney amounting to P1,979,459.00 frompetitioner. On 8 January 1993, Cawili and hisbusiness associate, Ramon C. Tongson, jointlyissued in favor of petitioner three (3) checks inpayment of the said loans. Significantly, allthree (3) checks bore the signatures of bothCawili and Tongson. Upon presentment forpayment on 18 March 1993, the checks weredishonored, either for insufficiency of funds orby the closure of the account. Petitioner madeformal demands to pay the amounts of thechecks upon Cawili on 23 May 1995 and uponTongson on 26 June 1995, but to no avail.On 24 August 1995, petitioner filed acomplaint against Cawili and Tongson forviolating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg.22) before the Quezon City Prosecutor'sOffice. During the preliminary investigation,only Tongson appeared and filed his counter-affidavit. However, Tongson claimed that hehad been unjustly included as party-respondent in the case since petitioner had lentmoney to Cawili in the latter's personalcapacity. Tongson averred that he was notCawili's business associate; in fact, he himselfhad filed several criminal cases against Cawilifor violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Tongson deniedthat he had issued the bounced checks andpointed out that his signatures on the saidchecks had been falsified.
Complied and Transcribed by STEPHANIE NARVAEZ2