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.