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 candidate for the position position of Representa Representative tive of the 3rd 3rd legislative district of Negros Oriental during the May 1, !""# elections !. respondent respondent $er%inio &. &. Teves Teves 'led a petition petition to dis(ualify dis(ualify Edgar Edgar on the ground that he was convicted of violating the )nti*&raft )nti* &raft and +orrupt Practices )ct, for possessing pecuniary or 'nancial interest in a cocpit, which is prohi-ited under the &+ a. the cri%e cri%e invol involves ves a cri%e cri%e of %oral %oral turpitud turpitude e 3. +OMEE+ 'rst 'rst division dis(uali'ed Edgar and and ordered ordered the the cancellation cancellation of his +erti'cate of +andidacy . +OMEE+ en -anc denied denied the petition for for review review 'led -y Edgar for -eing -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. andigan-ayan 1 involved %oral turpitude. HELD% 1. Moral turpitude turpitude has has -een de'ned as everything which is done contrary to 2ustice, %odesty, %odesty, or good %orals %orals an act of -aseness, -aseness, vileness vileness or depravity depravity in the private and social duties which a %an owes his fellow%en, or to society in general. !. Edgar Edgar was convicte convicted d under ectio ection n 34h5 of R.). R.). 3"167 3"167 ec. 3. +orrupt practices of pu-lic o8cers. 9 :n addition to acts or o%issions of pu-lic o8cers already penali;ed -y e
prohi-ited under ec. >64!5 of the ocal &overn%ent +ode of 1661. !. Even if the ownership of petitioner Edgar Teves over the cocpit were transferred to his wife, still he would have a direct interest thereon -ecause, as correctly held -y respondent andigan-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. ection >64!5 of the &+ of 1661, which reads7 ection >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 cocpit 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 upre%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 '
c. &a%-ling is not illegal per se. the +ongress through its enacted laws did not declare coc'ghting as illegal.
