Legem Advocatus

"AN ADVOCATE IS NOT ONE WHO SPEAKS OF REFORMS BUT ONE WHO MADE REFORMS
HAPPEN." ENGRJHEZ
HOME
ENGR. JHEZ SALVADOR, MPICE
JHEZ NOTES
RSS

A Day With An Alternative Answer

Adultery in Flagrante Delicto

Understanding Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

07FEB

One of the requirement before one can be admitted to practice of law is a satisfactory evidence of good
moral character and not having been filed any charge against him involving moral turpitude in any
Philippine Court (Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court). But what precisely, if not exactly is moral
turpitude?

One of the Supreme Court jurisprudence that I recommend is the concurring opinion of Associate Justice
Arturo Brion in the case of Teves vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 180363. April 28, 2009). There, Justice Brion
discussed a brief (legislative) history of the term. Its roots can be traced from US immigration laws as
early as 17th century. Since then, there was a gradual qualification of felony, offenses and crimes to be
associated with moral turpitude, and fraudulent conduct was a controlling factor in associating it.
In the early editions of Blacks Law Dictionary, it defines moral turpitude as:

[An] act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in private and social duties which man owes to his fellow
man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man
and man. xxx Act or behavior that gravely violates moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of
community and is a morally culpable quality held to be present in some criminal offenses as distinguished
from others. xxx The quality of a crime involving grave infringement of the moral sentiment of the
community as distinguished from statutory mala prohibita.

In a case which involved a lawyer (In Re Basa, 1920) having committed abduction with consent, the
Supreme Court (of the Philippines) through Justice Malcolm have spoken:
Moral turpitude, it has been said, includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals. (Bouviers Law Dictionary, cited by numerous courts.) Although no decision
can be found which has decided the exact question, it cannot admit of doubt that crimes of this character
involve moral turpitude. The inherent nature of the act is such that it is against good morals and the
accepted rule of right conduct.

Since then, some of the identified crimes involving moral turpitude were identified as follows:

1. Abduction with consent

2. Seduction under promise of marriage
3. Bigamy
4. Concubinage
5. Adultery
6. Smuggling
7. Rape
8. Estafa through falsification of a document
9. Attempted Bribery
10. Profiteering
11. Robbery
12. Murder, whether consummated or attempted
13. Estafa
14. Theft
15. Blackmail
16. Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker
17. Violation of BP Blg. 22
18. Falsification of Document
19. Mutilation of public records
20. Fabrication of evidence
21. Making fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract
22. Offenses against pension laws
23. Evasion of income tax
24. Intriguing against Honor
25. Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
26. Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)
27. Criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium
28. Perjury
29. Forgery
30. Libel
31. Direct Bribery
32. Frustrated Homicide
33. Arson
34. Barratry
35. Dueling
36. Embezzlement
On the other hand, the following crimes were ruled out not to be involving moral turpitude:
1. Minor transgressions of the law (i.e., conviction for speeding)
2. Illegal recruitment
3. Slight physical injuries
4. Carrying of deadly weapon (Illegal possession of firearms)
5. Indirect Contempt
There were three (3) approaches to determine if the any crime, not previously identified, may be
considered as crime involving moral turpitude:

First approach: (objective approach) involvement of moral turpitude where an act is intrinsically immoral,
regardless of whether it is punishable by law or not. The Court emphasized that moral turpitude goes
beyond being merely mala prohibita; the act itself must be inherently immoral. Thus, this approach
requires that the committed act itself be examined, divorced from its characterization as a crime.
Second approach: look at the act committed through its elements as a crime. The Court recognized that
as a general rule, all crimes of which fraud is an element are looked on as involving moral
turpitude. This is the same conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court, that crimes requiring fraud or intent
to defraud always involve moral turpitude.
Third approach: (subjective approach) essentially takes the offender and his acts into account in light of
the attendant circumstances of the crime: was he motivated by ill will indicating depravity?
For the three approaches, the defining question is: Is it contrary to the accepted rules of right and duty,
justice, honesty and good morals? To be able to be cleared and ruled out of the definition of moral
turpitude, all three must be answered in the negative.
BTW, in the cited case, the SC ruled:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Commission on Elections
dated May 11, 2007 and October 9, 2007 disqualifying petitioner Edgar Y. Teves from running for the
position of Representative of the 3rd District of Negros Oriental, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a
new one is entered declaring that the crime committed by petitioner(violation of Section 3(h) of R.A.
3019) did not involve moral turpitude.
Share this:

Twitter
Facebook2

Loading...

Related
People vs. Tuanda [A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990]In "Case Digests"
Delving with DisciplineIn "Personal"
Criminal Law 101In "Criminal Law"

Leave a comment
Posted by engrjhez on February 7, 2013 in Legal Ethics
Tags: fraud, mala in se, moral turpitude

A Day With An Alternative Answer

Adultery in Flagrante Delicto
 Leave a Reply

Search

Recent Posts
o CALTEX (Philippines) Inc. v. Enrico Palomar as The Postmaster General, G.R. No. L-19650, 29
September 1966
o The Mentholatum Co. Inc. et al., v. Mangaliman, et al., G.R. No. L-47701, 27 June 1941.
o B. Van Zuiden Bros. Ltd. v. GTVL Manufacturing, G.R. No. 147905, 28 May 2007
o Steelcase, Inc. v. Design International Selections, Inc. (DISI), G.R. No. 171995, 18 April 2012
o Heirs of Gamboa v. Teves, et al., G.R. No. 176579, 09 October 2012

Archives
o June 2016
o May 2016
o April 2016
o March 2016
o February 2016
o December 2015
o November 2015
o October 2015
o September 2015
o August 2015
o July 2015
o June 2015
o May 2015
o April 2015
o March 2015
o February 2015
o December 2014
o November 2014
o October 2014
o August 2014
o July 2014
o May 2014
o April 2014
o March 2014
o January 2014
o December 2013
o November 2013
o October 2013
o September 2013
o August 2013
o June 2013
o May 2013
o April 2013
o March 2013
o February 2013
o January 2013
o December 2012
o October 2012
o September 2012
o August 2012
o July 2012
o May 2012
o March 2012

Categories
o Administrative Law
o BAC^k Issues
o Case Digests
o Civil Law
o Civil Service
o Commercial Law
o Constitutional Law
o Corporation Law
o Criminal Law
o Evidence
o Government Procurement
o Intellectual Property Law
o Investment Law
o Labor Law
o Legal Ethics
o Love and Relationships
o Negotiable Instruments Law
o Other Law Subjects
o Personal
o Political Law
o Public Officers
o Remedial Law
o Statutory Construction
o Taxation Law
o Technology and the Law
o Torts and Damages

Meta
o Register
o Log in
o Entries RSS
o Comments RSS
o WordPress.com
 Philippine Government Procurement
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)
Follow

Follow Legem Advocatus

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 194 other followers

Sign me up

Build a website with WordPress.com