Good Faith and Lack of Intent Can Exonerate You from Election Offenses

Amalia G. Cardona v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 244544, July 06, 2020

Imagine casting your vote in an election, only to find out later that a simple mistake by an election official could land them in jail. This was the reality for Amalia G. Cardona, who faced criminal charges for unintentionally asking voters to sign the back of their ballots. The Supreme Court’s decision in her case highlights the critical role of intent in determining criminal liability for election offenses, offering a beacon of hope for those who act in good faith.

Amalia G. Cardona was the chairperson of a Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) during the 2001 elections in Mahaplag, Leyte. She mistakenly instructed voters to sign the back of their ballots due to a mental lapse, believing it to be a new requirement. This error led to her conviction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), both of which deemed her actions as violating election laws. The central legal question was whether her good faith and lack of intent could absolve her of criminal liability.

Legal Context

Election laws in the Philippines are designed to ensure the integrity and secrecy of the voting process. Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7166 and Section 195 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) are crucial in this context. Section 23(a) and (c) specify the design and permissible markings on official ballots, while Section 195 of the OEC prohibits the intentional defacement or marking of ballots that could compromise voter secrecy.

Mala in se versus mala prohibita is a key distinction in criminal law. Mala in se refers to acts inherently wrong or immoral, where intent is crucial for conviction. Mala prohibita are acts wrong because they are prohibited by law, often without regard to intent. The Supreme Court clarified that not all violations of special laws are automatically mala prohibita; some can be considered mala in se if they involve inherently immoral acts.

For instance, if a voter accidentally spills coffee on their ballot, creating a mark, it would not be considered an election offense under Section 195 because there was no intent to identify the ballot. However, if a voter deliberately marks their ballot to signal their choice to others, this would be an offense due to the intent to compromise secrecy.

Case Breakdown

Amalia G. Cardona’s ordeal began on election day when she, overwhelmed by the pressure of a delayed start and a large number of voters, experienced a mental blackout. She mistakenly told the first batch of voters to sign the back of their ballots, a practice she believed was newly mandated. Upon realizing her error, Cardona immediately closed the ballot box and sought guidance from the COMELEC Registrar.

The RTC convicted Cardona based on her admission of the mistake, treating the offense as mala prohibita where intent was irrelevant. The CA upheld this conviction, modifying only the penalty. However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, emphasizing that Section 195 of the OEC is mala in se, requiring proof of intent to convict.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was clear:

“The applicable portion of Section 195 forbids the intentional tearing or defacing of the ballot or the placement of a distinguishing mark.”

Cardona’s actions were not intended to identify the ballots but were a result of a genuine mistake. The Court noted her immediate corrective actions and the lack of objection from poll watchers as evidence of her good faith.

The prosecution failed to present the allegedly marked ballots as evidence, which was crucial in proving the deliberate nature of the markings. Without this evidence, the Court found that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proving Cardona’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Practical Implications

This ruling sets a precedent that good faith and lack of intent can be valid defenses against charges of election offenses under Section 195 of the OEC. It underscores the importance of proving intent in cases where the act itself is not inherently immoral but is prohibited by law.

For election officials and voters alike, this decision offers relief. If an election official makes an honest mistake, such as Cardona’s, they can argue lack of intent to avoid criminal liability. Voters can also feel more secure knowing that unintentional marks on their ballots will not invalidate their votes or lead to legal repercussions.

Key Lessons:

• Understand the distinction between mala in se and mala prohibita offenses, especially in election law.
• Immediate corrective action and transparency can demonstrate good faith and mitigate potential legal issues.
• Prosecution must present concrete evidence to prove intent in cases involving election offenses.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between mala in se and mala prohibita?

Mala in se refers to acts that are inherently wrong or immoral, requiring intent for conviction. Mala prohibita are acts that are wrong because they are prohibited by law, often without regard to intent.

Can an election official be prosecuted for an honest mistake?

Not necessarily. If the mistake was made in good faith and without intent to violate election laws, the official may have a valid defense, as seen in Cardona’s case.

What should voters do if they accidentally mark their ballot?

Voters should inform the election officials immediately. If the mark was unintentional and does not compromise the secrecy of the vote, it should not affect the validity of the ballot.

How can election officials avoid similar situations?

By staying updated on election procedures and immediately correcting any errors, election officials can demonstrate good faith and avoid legal issues.

What are the penalties for election offenses under the OEC?

Conviction can result in imprisonment from one to six years, disqualification from holding public office, and deprivation of the right to vote.

Is it necessary to present the marked ballots in court?

Yes, presenting the ballots is crucial to proving the deliberate nature of any markings and thus the intent to violate election laws.

ASG Law specializes in election law and criminal defense. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.