484 SCRA 617 Criminal Law 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 Pimentels 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 Pimentels 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 candidates 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, Garcias defense of good faith was not proven. Facts show that the decreasing of
Pimentels 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. Thats a clear sign that she
facilitated the erroneous entry.