EDGAR Y. TEVES, Petitioner, vs.

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and

HERMINIO G. TEVES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 180363 Apri !8, !00" YNARES#SANTIAGO, J.:
$ACTS%
1. Edgar Teves was a candidate for the position of Representative of the 3rd
legislative district of Negros Oriental during the May 1, !""# elections
!. respondent $er%inio &. Teves 'led a petition to dis(ualify Edgar on the
ground that he was convicted of violating the )nti*&raft and +orrupt Practices
)ct, for possessing pecuniary or 'nancial interest in a coc,pit, which is
prohi-ited under the .&+
a. the cri%e involves a cri%e of %oral turpitude
3. +OME.E+ 'rst division dis(uali'ed Edgar and ordered the cancellation of his
+erti'cate of +andidacy
. +OME.E+ en -anc denied the petition for review 'led -y Edgar for -eing
%oot since he lost in the elections
ISS&E% /hether the cri%e of which petitioner Edgar 0. Teves was convicted in Teves
v. 1andigan-ayan
1
involved %oral turpitude.
HELD%
1. Moral turpitude has -een de'ned as everything which is done contrary to
2ustice, %odesty, or good %orals3 an act of -aseness, vileness or depravity in
the private and social duties which a %an owes his fellow%en, or to society in
general.
!. Edgar was convicted under 1ection 34h5 of R.). 3"167
1ec. 3. +orrupt practices of pu-lic o8cers. 9 :n addition to acts or o%issions of
pu-lic o8cers already penali;ed -y e<isting law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any pu-lic o8cer and are here-y declared to -e unlawful7
< < < <
4h5 =irectly or indirectly having 'nancial or pecuniary interest in any -usiness,
contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or ta,es part in his
o8cial capacity, or in which he is prohi-ited -y the +onstitution or -y any law fro%
having any interest.
a. The ele%ents of such violation are7
i. The accused is a pu-lic o8cer3
ii. he has a direct or indirect 'nancial or pecuniary interest in any
-usiness, contract or transaction3
iii. he either7 a5 intervenes or ta,es part in his o8cial capacity in
connection with such interest, or -5 is prohi-ited fro% having
such interest -y the +onstitution or -y law.
-. ! %odes -y which a pu-lic o8cer who has a direct or indirect 'nancial
or pecuniary interest in any -usiness, contract, or transaction %ay
violate 1ection 34h5 of R.). 3"16.
i. when the pu-lic o8cer intervenes or ta,es part in his o8cial
capacity in connection with his 'nancial or pecuniary interest in
any -usiness, contract, or transaction.
ii. when he is prohi-ited fro% having such an interest -y the
+onstitution or -y law.
1. Edgar was convicted under this %ode for having
pecuniary or 'nancial interest in a coc,pit which is
prohi-ited under 1ec. >64!5 of the .ocal &overn%ent +ode
of 1661.
!. Even if the ownership of petitioner Edgar Teves over the
coc,pit were transferred to his wife, still he would have a
direct interest thereon -ecause, as correctly held -y
respondent 1andigan-ayan, they re%ained %arried to
each other fro% 16>3 up to 166!, and as such their
property relation can -e presu%ed to -e that of con2ugal
partnership of gains in the a-sence of evidence to the
contrary.
3. 1ection >64!5 of the .&+ of 1661, which reads7
1ection >6. Prohi-ited ?usiness and Pecuniary :nterest. @ 4a5 :t shall -e unlawful for
any local govern%ent o8cial or e%ployee, directly or indirectly, to7
< < < <
4!5 $old such interests in any coc,pit or other ga%es licensed -y a local
govern%ent unitA. BE%phasis suppliedC.
3. conviction under the second %ode does not auto%atically %ean that the
sa%e involved %oral turpitude
a. %oral turpitude does not include such acts as are not of the%selves
i%%oral -ut whose illegality lies in their -eing positively prohi-ited, as
in the instant case.
. =ela Torre v. +o%%ission on Elections7 Not every cri%inal act, however,
involves %oral turpitude. :t is for this reason that Das to what cri%e involves
%oral turpitude, is for the 1upre%e +ourt to deter%ine.D
a. %ust not -e %erely %ala prohi-ita, -ut the act itself %ust -e
inherently i%%oral. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohi-ition
-y statute '<es the %oral turpitude. Moral turpitude does not,
however, include such acts as are not of the%selves i%%oral -ut
whose illegality lies in their -eing positively prohi-ited.D
E. There are cri%es which are %ala in se and yet -ut rarely involve %oral
turpitude and there are cri%es which involve %oral turpitude and are %ala
prohi-ita only.
a. '()*()r or no* a +ri,) in-o-). ,ora */rpi*/d) i. /*i,a*)0 a
1/).*ion o2 2a+* and 2r)1/)n*0 d)p)nd. on a *()
+ir+/,.*an+). ./rro/ndin3 *() -ioa*ion o2 *() .*a*/*).
F. all the circu%stances surrounding petitionerGs conviction and found that the
sa%e does not involve %oral turpitude.
a. there is neither %erit nor factual -asis in +OME.E+Gs 'nding that
petitioner used his o8cial capacity in connection with his interest in
the coc,pit and that he hid the sa%e -y transferring the %anage%ent
to his wife, in violation of the trust reposed on hi% -y the people.
-. while possession of -usiness and pecuniary interest in a coc,pit
licensed -y the local govern%ent unit is e<pressly prohi-ited -y the
present .&+, however, its illegality does not %ean that violation
thereof necessarily involves %oral turpitude or %a,es such possession
of interest inherently i%%oral.
i. +ourt too, 2udicial notice of the fact that %ere possession of
pecuniary interest in a coc,pit was not a%ong the prohi-itions
enu%erated in 1ection 1 thereof
c. &a%-ling is not illegal per se. the +ongress through its enacted laws
did not declare coc,'ghting as illegal.