The Supreme Court ruled in Teves v. Commission on Elections that a conviction for violating Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act does not automatically involve moral turpitude, and thus does not lead to electoral disqualification. The Court emphasized the importance of evaluating all circumstances surrounding a violation to determine if it involves acts contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals. This means that possessing a financial interest prohibited by law, without an inherently immoral act, does not automatically disqualify someone from holding public office.

Cockpits and Candidates: Does a Graft Conviction Bar a Politician?

Edgar Y. Teves, a candidate for Representative of Negros Oriental’s 3rd district, faced disqualification due to a prior conviction for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Respondent Herminio G. Teves argued that the conviction, stemming from Edgar’s financial interest in a cockpit, involved moral turpitude, thus disqualifying him from running for office. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) initially agreed, disqualifying Edgar. However, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed this decision, setting the stage for a deeper examination of moral turpitude and its implications for holding public office. What constitutes moral turpitude, and how does it affect a candidate’s eligibility? This is the crux of the Teves v. COMELEC case.

The central legal question revolved around Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code, which disqualifies individuals convicted of crimes involving **moral turpitude** from running for public office. Moral turpitude is defined as anything done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity. The COMELEC’s First Division originally disqualified Teves based on the “totality of facts,” arguing that his attempt to circumvent the prohibition by transferring management to his wife, while retaining ownership, demonstrated moral depravity. However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation flawed. The Court underscored that not every criminal act constitutes moral turpitude, drawing a distinction between crimes **mala in se** (inherently wrong) and crimes **mala prohibita** (wrong because prohibited by law).

Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, outlines corrupt practices of public officers, including having a direct or indirect financial interest in any business that conflicts with their official duties or is prohibited by law. The elements of this violation are that the accused is a public officer, has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest, and either intervenes in his official capacity or is prohibited from having such interest. There are two ways to violate Section 3(h). The first is through intervention; the second is simply by having the prohibited interest. Teves was convicted under the second mode for having a pecuniary interest in a cockpit, which is outlawed under the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991.

Sec. 12. Disqualifications. – Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months, or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court reasoned that Teves’s conviction under the second mode didn’t automatically equate to moral turpitude. The Court highlighted that such a determination requires a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances surrounding the violation. This approach contrasts with a rigid interpretation that labels every violation of Section 3(h) as involving moral turpitude. Instead, the Court sought to ascertain if Teves’s actions involved elements of baseness, vileness, or depravity in his duties to his fellow citizens or society.

Specifically, the Court addressed COMELEC’s finding that Teves misused his official capacity or concealed his interest in the cockpit. The Court, however, found no evidence of Teves using his position as Mayor to further his financial interest in the cockpit. In its decision, the Court noted: “As early as 1983, Edgar Teves was already the owner of the Valencia Cockpit… Since then until 31 December 1991, possession by a local official of pecuniary interest in a cockpit was not yet prohibited.” Furthermore, before the LGC of 1991 took effect, Teves transferred management of the cockpit to his wife, which showed there was no intent to intentionally hide anything. Moreover, the prohibition on a public officer having an interest in a cockpit didn’t automatically make such ownership inherently immoral.

Therefore, the Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the COMELEC’s decision and declaring that Teves’s crime did not involve moral turpitude. The Supreme Court emphasized that lacking awareness of the prohibition would justify a lighter penalty and also stated gambling itself is not a morality issue for the courts to decide. It reinforced that not all violations of statutes, particularly those that are merely **mala prohibita**, constitute moral turpitude, thus clarifying when a candidate’s prior conviction disqualifies them from running for public office.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Edgar Y. Teves’s conviction for violating Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) involved moral turpitude, which would disqualify him from holding public office.
What is moral turpitude?	Moral turpitude is defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to society, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It is a legal term used to determine whether a crime warrants certain penalties or disqualifications.
What is the difference between mala in se and mala prohibita?	Mala in se refers to acts that are inherently immoral or wrong, while mala prohibita refers to acts that are wrong because they are prohibited by law. The distinction is important because crimes involving moral turpitude are generally considered mala in se.
What were the grounds for Teves’s initial disqualification?	Teves was initially disqualified by the COMELEC because they believed that his conviction for having a financial interest in a cockpit, coupled with his alleged attempts to hide this interest, constituted moral turpitude.
Why did the Supreme Court reverse the COMELEC’s decision?	The Supreme Court reversed the decision because it found that Teves’s violation of Section 3(h) did not automatically involve moral turpitude, and that a thorough examination of the circumstances was required. The Court found insufficient evidence that his actions involved inherent immorality.
What was the significance of Teves transferring management of the cockpit to his wife?	The Supreme Court found this was done before the enactment of the LGC of 1991 prohibiting it, proving the actions weren’t a coverup of an act he knew was wrong.
Does this ruling mean that all violations of Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019 do not involve moral turpitude?	No, the ruling emphasizes that each case must be evaluated based on its specific circumstances. The decision is a narrow application to the specifics of this case and not a blanket free pass to violate anti-graft laws.
What is the practical implication of this decision?	This ruling sets the precedence for those in violation of anti-graft law or similar and its intersection with the moral turpitude law. It dictates a narrow application that could enable a politician to be considered qualified for holding public office, despite having technically violated R.A. 3019, as long as the said violation can’t be classified as being of inherently immoral act.

In conclusion, Teves v. COMELEC serves as a crucial reminder that determining whether a crime involves moral turpitude requires a nuanced assessment, considering not just the letter of the law but also the specific context and motivations behind the actions. This case clarifies that not all violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act lead to automatic disqualification from public office. A crime should be morally wrong to disqualify someone based on moral turpitude.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Teves v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009