PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LOURDES TAGALA ADANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Adano

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Lourdes Tagala Adano, a criminal appeal in which the State prosecuted a private citizen for an election offense. The accused was charged with knowingly making a false statement in her voter registration record, and separately with voting twice in the same election. The case matters because it draws the boundary of double jeopardy in election law: it teaches that two charges springing from one set of acts are not the same offense, and that offenses punished by special laws are generally mala prohibita, meaning the mere commission of the prohibited act is punishable and good faith is beside the point.

Procedural History

Three separate criminal informations were filed against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Sur, Branch 40: one for knowingly making an untruthful statement in her second voter registration record, one for casting her votes twice, and one for registering anew without filing an application for cancellation of her previous registration. On motion of the accused, the third case was dismissed before her arraignment. The first information was later amended, and the trial court admitted the amended information over her motion to quash. Upon arraignment, she entered a plea of not guilty, and trial on the merits followed.

The trial court rendered a joint judgment. It convicted her in the case for the false statement and acquitted her in the case for voting twice, on the ground of reasonable doubt. From that conviction she appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning a single error: that the trial court gravely erred in finding her guilty despite the prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

Before the synchronized national and local elections of May 1998, the Commission on Elections conducted a nationwide registration of voters. On 15 June 1997, the accused filed an application for registration as a voter in Barangay Mangcasay, Paracale, Camarines Norte, and her application was approved that same day. Two days later, she and her husband transferred their residence to Mercedes, Camarines Norte. On 21 June 1997, she filed a second application for registration, this time in Barangay 2, Mercedes. In that second record she attested that she was not registered as a voter in any other precinct, although she was fully aware of her earlier registration in Barangay Mangcasay.

On election day, 11 May 1998, the prosecution's evidence showed that she voted in Barangay Mangcasay using one ballot, and also cast a vote in Barangay 2 using another ballot. The defense, for its part, claimed that she had returned to Barangay Mangcasay in November 1997, that she voted only once there, and that she never voted in Barangay 2. She testified that she believed her earlier registration would be automatically cancelled by her second one, and that she was merely handed a sample form to copy and was never asked whether she had previously registered.

The trial court found that she did not dispute applying for registration twice. It held that the violation was mala prohibita, so criminal intent was unnecessary, and that good faith or ignorance was beside the point. It convicted her in the false statement case and acquitted her in the voting twice case for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, since no expert witness established that the thumbmarks and signatures on the records belonged to one and the same person.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused's acquittal for voting twice bars her prosecution and conviction for knowingly making a false statement in her voter registration record under the doctrine of double jeopardy.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering her claim that she had no intent to commit the prohibited act and acted in good faith.
• Whether or not the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as against the presumption of innocence, excuses her from liability given the alleged negligence of the election officers.

Applicable Provisions

Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, the Omnibus Election Code, defines the offense of voting more than once, and provides:

Any person who votes more than once in the same election, or who, not being a registered voter, votes in an election.

This is the offense for which the accused was acquitted, and it is the offense she claims is identical to the one for which she was convicted.

The same Section 261 defines the offense of knowingly making a false statement on registration, and provides:

Any person who knowingly makes any false or untruthful statement relative to any of the data or information required in the application for registration.

This is the offense for which she was convicted, and the Court holds it is distinct from voting twice.

On the excuse of ignorance, Article 3 of the Civil Code provides:

Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.

The Court invokes this to reject her claim that she did not know her prior registration had to be cancelled first.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that no double jeopardy attached. For jeopardy to attach, there must be a first jeopardy validly terminated, and the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first. The test is whether one offense is identical with the other, or is an attempt or frustration of it, or whether the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the first. The Court stressed that the crime for which she was acquitted was not double registration but voting twice, while the crime for which she was convicted was knowingly making a false statement. These are separately defined offenses, and one does not include the other. The Court put the principle plainly: there is no double jeopardy when the subsequent information charges another and a different offense, although arising from the same act or set of acts. What is forbidden is prosecution for the same offense, not prosecution for the same act. As to the dismissed double registration case, no jeopardy attached because it was dismissed on her own motion before arraignment.

On the second issue, the Court held that the violation is malum prohibitum, an offense prohibited by a special law. In such offenses the intent or motive of the offender is immaterial, and mere commission of the illegal act is punishable. The Court distinguished the Garcia case, which treated certain canvass errors as mala in se, as an exception inapplicable here. Since the accused admitted she registered anew knowing of her prior registration, her attestation that she was not registered in any other precinct consummated the prohibited act, and her claim of good faith was inconsequential.

On the third issue, the Court held that the presumption of innocence cannot prevail where the accused never disputed that she committed the illegal act. The election officers could not have known of her prior registration unless she disclosed it. Her mere assumption that her earlier registration would be automatically cancelled showed her own negligence, not the officers'. The Court closed with the maxim that ignorance of the law excuses no one.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, double jeopardy requires that the second charge be the same offense as the first; charges arising from the same acts but defined as distinct offenses under the Omnibus Election Code do not bar one another. Second, jeopardy does not attach where the case was dismissed before the accused entered a plea, or at the accused's own instance. Third, election offenses under Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 in relation to Republic Act No. 8189 are generally mala prohibita, so intent and good faith are immaterial and mere commission of the prohibited act is punishable. Fourth, ignorance of the law, as Article 3 of the Civil Code declares, excuses no one.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the accused for the election offense of knowingly making a false statement in her voter registration record.

Remember This

Memorize the line that there is no double jeopardy when the subsequent information charges another and a different offense, although arising from the same act or set of acts. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se in election offenses, and the elements of double jeopardy.