Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 878 views

    41 People Vs Sunico

    Uploaded by

    Nowell Sim
    The accused were election officials charged with transferring voter names to a new precinct list, but accidentally omitted some names. They claimed this was done in good faith. The trial court found them guilty, saying their actions were malum prohibitum even without criminal intent. However, the Supreme Court ruled their acts were mala in se, requiring intent. Since the accused were charged under the Election Code and not Penal Code, they could not be criminally punished for the unintentional omission.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    41 People Vs Sunico

    Uploaded by

    Nowell Sim
    878 views1 page
    The accused were election officials charged with transferring voter names to a new precinct list, but accidentally omitted some names. They claimed this was done in good faith. The trial court found them guilty, saying their actions were malum prohibitum even without criminal intent. However, the Supreme Court ruled their acts were mala in se, requiring intent. Since the accused were charged under the Election Code and not Penal Code, they could not be criminally punished for the unintentional omission.

    Original Description:

    Criminal law 1

    Original Title

    41 People vs Sunico

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused were election officials charged with transferring voter names to a new precinct list, but accidentally omitted some names. They claimed this was done in good faith. The trial court found them guilty, saying their actions were malum prohibitum even without criminal intent. However, the Supreme Court ruled their acts were mala in se, requiring intent. Since the accused were charged under the Election Code and not Penal Code, they could not be criminally punished for the unintentional omission.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    878 views1 page

    41 People Vs Sunico

    Uploaded by

    Nowell Sim
    The accused were election officials charged with transferring voter names to a new precinct list, but accidentally omitted some names. They claimed this was done in good faith. The trial court found them guilty, saying their actions were malum prohibitum even without criminal intent. However, the Supreme Court ruled their acts were mala in se, requiring intent. Since the accused were charged under the Election Code and not Penal Code, they could not be criminally punished for the unintentional omission.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    41

    PEOPLE v. SUNICO, ET AL / C.A., 50 OG 5880


    FACTS:
    The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks who were to transfer
    the names of voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.
    Several voters were omitted in the list thus, disallowing them to vote.
    They were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and103 of the Revised
    Election Code.
    They claimed that they made the omission in good faith.
    The trial court found the accused guilty.
    The crime, even though there was no bad faith in the act of the accused was
    decided to be malum prohibitum.
    Even without criminal intent, their act was still criminally punishable.
    ISSUE:
    Whether the act was mala in se or mala prohibita.
    RULING:
    The Supreme Court decided that the acts of the accused were mala in se.
    They find
    that failure to include a voters name in the registry was not only prohibited
    but it is wrong because it excludes a person from one of his fundamental
    rights, to vote. For the accused to be punished, there should be intentional or
    willful omission on their part, which the accused at bar did not do. Because
    the accused was charged in relation to the Revised Election Code and not
    the Revised Penal Code or its amendments, they cannot be criminally
    punished.

    You might also like