A Research Study on Cases Involving Moral Turpitude

September 17, 2009 BLGF MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 025-09 TO : All BLGF Officials and Employees, Regional Directors for Local Government Finance, District Treasurers of Metropolitan Manila; Provincial, City and Municipal Treasurers and Others Concerned SUBJECT : A Research Study on Cases Involving Moral Turpitude Attached for the information and guidance of all concerned, is a copy of a study paper entitled "A Research Study on Cases Involving Moral Turpitude" duly approved for dissemination by the Civil Service Commission. The research paper provides an in-depth analysis about crimes involving moral turpitude vis--vis the administrative case of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and may serve as a reference in deciding cases involving moral turpitude. The study concludes that, "The depravity of the commission of the crimes depicts whether it involves moral turpitude and more often than not by process of judicial inclusion and exclusion. Thus, only those acts that are inherently immoral and contrary to justice are considered acts involving moral turpitude whether prohibited or merely abhorred. And those that are not within those bounds thereof may or may not involve moral turpitude if circumstances so warrant." The Regional Directors of this Bureau are hereby instructed to disseminate the contents of this Circular to all Provincial, City and Municipal Treasurers within their respective jurisdiction, likewise enjoining them to observe and comply with the provisions thereof. Be guided accordingly. (SGD.) MA. PRESENTACION R. MONTESA Executive Director ATTACHMENT Republic of the Philippines Civil Service Commission Constitution Hills, Batasang Pambansa Complex, Diliman 1126 Quezon City January 8, 2009 CSC OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 001-09 TO : All Heads of CSC Regional Offices SUBJECT : A Research Study on Cases Involving Moral Turpitude In keeping with its mandate of dispensing administrative justice, the Commission recently approved for dissemination to its regional offices a study paper entitled, "A Research Study on Cases Involving Moral Turpitude" presented by the Office for Legal Affairs. cIDHSC The research paper provides an in-depth analysis about crimes involving moral turpitude vis--vis the administrative case of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Herewith attached is a copy of said paper for your guidance and reference. (SGD.) RICARDO L. SALUDO Chairman A RESEARCH STUDY ON CASES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE I. Rationale: The present study intends to explore the concept and nature of moral turpitude in relation to administrative cases. It shall identify the specific crimes that are considered as involving moral turpitude. The paper aims to relate said crimes with respect to the administrative case of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and other disqualifications provided for by law. Moreover, the paper shall discuss the requirement of final judgment in prosecuting a disciplinary case of this nature. The primary objective of this study is to provide an in-depth knowledge on crimes involving moral turpitude vis--vis the administrative case of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. It is hoped that the information and discussion provided herein will guide legal minds towards a better understanding of the administrative offense of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Finally, the study may serve as a reference in deciding administrative cases involving moral turpitude. A cursory evaluation of the parameters set-forth by the Supreme Court was elaborated herein so as to provide concrete circumstantial grounds on the administrative case of this nature. II. Moral Turpitude: The term has been defined as follows: "Turpitude in its ordinary sense involves the idea of inherent baseness or vileness, shameful wickedness, depravity . . ." In its legal sense "it includes everything contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. . . ." 1 HSATIC In the case of Cayat vs. COMELEC, 522 SCRA 23, the Supreme Court defined moral turpitude, as follows: "Moral turpitude had been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals." Moreover in the case of Dela Torre vs. COMELEC, 258 SCRA 483, the Supreme Court also described moral turpitude as: ". . . act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals." On the purview of the above-cited cases, moral turpitude has reference largely to moral character of the offender and the depravity of doing the act. Generally, all crimes embraced within the Roman's conception of the crimen falsi involve turpitude; but it is not safe to declare that such crimes are the only ones involving turpitude. In the case of International Rice Research Institute vs. National Labor Relation Commission, et al., 221 SCRA 760, the Court elaborated that: "Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances. While . . . generally but not always,crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not, it cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum, since there are crimes which are mala in se and yet but rarely involve moral turpitude and there are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, that moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to the process of juridical inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached." DHIcET III. Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude as Ruled by the Supreme Court: The test of whether a felony is one involving moral turpitude is "does the crime, disregarding its felony punishment, meet the test as being contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, good morals or man's duty to man?" As to what crime involves moral turpitude, the Court in resolving the foregoing question, is guided by the general rules that: Where the record clearly shows that the conviction is predicated on a specific provision of law, whose terms necessarily embrace acts that are offenses involving moral turpitude, supports a conclusion that the conviction was of a crime that involves moral turpitude. Thus, the statutory definition of the offense will determine whether the conviction involves moral turpitude. Generally crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not, the rationale of which was set forth in the case of Dela Torre vs. COMELEC and Marcial Villanueva, G.R. No. 121592, July 5,1996, to wit: "It (moral turpitude) implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact that it is punishable by law or not. It must not be merely mala prohibita, but the act itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude. Moral turpitude does not, however, include such acts as are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being positively prohibited." However, these guidelines nonetheless proved short of providing a clear-cut solution, for in Villaber vs. COMELEC, 369 SCRA 126, the Supreme Court ruled: ". . . the Court admitted that it cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by merely classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibita. There are crimes which are mala in se and yet but rarely involve moral turpitude, and there are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only." 2 HCTEDa In the final analysis, whether a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances surrounding the case. Thus, the crime of homicide, which is inherently immoral and contrary to justice, may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the circumstances of the crime. Malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance by a public officer although not inherently abhorred but it is prohibited may or may not involved moral turpitude depending on the depravity of doing the acts. The Supreme Court, in the case of Zari vs. Flores, 94 SCRA 317, identified the particular crimes under the Revised Penal Code and other Special Laws, if committed, are deemed involving moral turpitude. 1. Title Four Crimes Against Public Interest a. Forgeries ( Office of the Court Administrator vs. Cruz, 228 SCRA 155); b. Falsification of Public Document; c. Mutilation of Public Records; d. Fabrication of Evidence; e. Perjury and/or giving false testimony (Fransisco, the Revised Rules of Court, Vol. VII, Part I, 1990 ed., p. 253); 2. Title Seven Crimes Committed by Public Officers a. Bribery ( Magno vs. COMELEC, 390 SCRA 495); 3. Title Eighth Crimes Against Persons a. Murder; b. Rape ( People of the Philippines vs. Quianola, et al., May 5, 1999); HAIaEc c. Dueling; 4. Title Ten Crimes Against Property a. Estafa, Embezzlement ( Resurreccion vs. Sayson, 300 SCRA 129); b. Estafa Through Falsification of Public Document; c. Arson; d. Robbery with homicide; 5. Title Eleven Crimes Against Chastity a. Adultery; b. Concubinage ( Palma vs. Fortich, January 29, 1987); c. Acts of Lasciviousness ( Cayat vs. COMELEC, 522 SCRA 23); d. Seduction Under Promise of Marriage; e. Abduction; 6. Title Twelve Crimes Against the Civil Status of Person a. Bigamy; 7. Title Thirteen Crimes Against Honor a. Libel; b. Blackmail; c. Extortion; DSTCIa With respect to Special Laws, the Supreme Court enumerated the crimes involving moral turpitude, to wit: 1. Violation of the Dangerous Drug Act/Drug Pushing ( Office of the Court Administrator vs. Librado, 260 SCRA 624); 2. Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, B.P. Blg. 22 (In Villaber vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148326, November 15, 2001. Re: Conviction of Imelda B. Fortus, Clerk III, RTC Br. 40, Calapan City for the Crime of Violation of B.P. 22, A.M. No. P-04-1808, 27 June 2005, 461 SCRA 231, 234-235); 3. Violation of P.D. 1612, Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 ( De la Torre vs. COMELEC, 258 SCRA 482); 4. Criminal Conspiracy to Smuggle Opium, Smuggling (In Re: Tranquilino Rovero, October 4, 1952). IV. Relevance of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude: Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general. It is a phrase used in Criminal Law to describe conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals. Many jurisdictions impose penalties, such as deportation of aliens, dismissal from the service, disqualification to hold any government office and disbarment of attorneys, if a person commits a crime involving moral turpitude. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude as a ground for filing an administrative case is based on the principle that those who are bestowed to serve and who exercise public functions shall be competent, honorable and reliable men and women in whom the government and the public may repose confidence. This is attuned to the principle that a public office is a public trust that demands of those in its service the highest degree of morality. HcTIDC Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude disqualifies a person to hold licenses in the exercise of a profession, to hold public offices, promotions and taking civil service examinations. In the Civil Service, these disqualifications are congruent with the mandate under the 1987 Philippine Constitution that appointment in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness. Merit and fitness in the civil service system, includes the educational qualification, training and relevant experience of the proposed appointee, his adaptability to the job to be performed, and his general efficiency which are generally depicted by the moral uprightness of the civil servant. A. As a Ground for Disciplinary Action Under Title I (Subtitle A) of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the Civil Service Commission, provides, to wit: "Section 46. Discipline: General provisions. (a) No Officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process. (b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action: xxx xxx xxx 10) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;" The case Virginia C. Hanrieder vs. Celia A. De Rivera, A.M. No. P-05-2026, August 2, 2007 provides: ". . ., the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disciplinary action. The Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service states that conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a grave offense and upon the first offense, the penalty of dismissal must be meted out. . . ." cADTSH Under Section 60 of the Local Government Code, RA 7160: "Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions. An elective local official may be disciplined, suspended, or removed from office on any of the following grounds: xxx xxx xxx (d) Commission of any offense involving moral turpitude or an offense punishable by at least prision mayor ;" B. As to Nature and Degree of Penalty Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service: "Section 52. Classification of Offenses. Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service. A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: xxx xxx xxx 5) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude 1st offense dismissal" In the case of Office of the Court Administrator vs. Librado, 260 SCRA 624 : ". . . Under the rules of the Civil Service Commission, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is considered a grave offenses punishable upon first commission by dismissal. As this Court has held, it alone suffices as a ground for the dismissal of a civil service employee." aCSDIc C. As a Disqualification to hold Office Under Section 12 of B.P. Blg. 881 (The Omnibus Election Code): "Section 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." Under Section 40 of the Local Government Code, RA 7160: "Section 40. Disqualifications. The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;" In the case of Nardo B. Cayat vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163776 & 165736, April 24, 2007: "From the definition of moral turpitude, it can be determined that the acts of [Cayat] involved moral turpitude. His acts fell short of his inherent duty of respecting his fellowmen and the society. This was aggravated by the fact that [Cayat] is a priest. The crime of acts of lasciviousness clearly involves moral turpitude. "Therefore, the respondent is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Applying Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code, it is recommended that [Cayat] be disqualified from running as Mayor of the Municipality of Buguias, Benguet." ESHAcI D. Under CSC Admission Requirements to take Civil Service Eligibility Exam "Only those who meet the admission requirements stated below should apply for the examination, otherwise, their applications shall be disapproved and the admission fees paid shall be forfeited. xxx xxx xxx "4. Have not been convicted by final judgment of an offense or crime involving moral turpitude, or of disgraceful or immoral conduct, dishonesty, examination irregularity, drunkenness or addiction to drugs;" E. The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000 "Section 4. Who are disqualified. The following are not qualified to be naturalized as Filipino citizens under this Act: xxx xxx xxx "(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude; " F. As a Ground for Disbarment of attorneys Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: "Section 27. A member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so." IECcaA In the case of People vs. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 692, the court stresses that: "Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not relate to the exercise of a profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense. It did not make distinction whether the offender is a lawyer or a non-lawyer. Nor did it declare that such offense constitute moral turpitude when committed by a member of the Bar but is not when committed by a non-member." Moreover in the case of Barrios vs. Martinez, 442 SCRA 324 : "The Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court. The purpose is to protect the administration of justice be requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence." V. Concept of Conviction by Final Judgment: It is understood that for a civil servant to be subjected to an administrative action, his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude must arise from a final judgment. The law requires a conviction by final judgment. Thus, on the issue on whether an employee can be held liable for the administrative offense of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude pending appeal, the Commission ruled in CSC Resolution No. 97-2876 dated May 20, 1997, that: "A charge for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is deemed actionable only if the finding of guilt against the respondent has already attained finality or can no longer be the subject of an appeal. This is so because pending the appeal, the investigation of the case is deemed to be still continuing and the respondent remains entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he could not at the time be rightfully held liable for the offense which arose out of his conviction of the criminal offense lodged against him." aTHASC The judgment of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude in an administrative case as a ground for civil servant's dismissal from service must have acquired finality that one becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect except to correct clerical errors or mistakes. Thus, all issues involving the guilt of the accused are resolved and laid to rest. VI. Effect of Probation Granted to Accused Convicted of an Offense Involving Moral Turpitude: In the case of Heirs of the Late Fransisco Abueg vs. CA, 219 SCRA 82 : "Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude which falls squarely under the disqualification from holding any office or function of the convicted person, subsists and remains totally unaffected notwithstanding the grant of probation. In fact, a judgment of conviction in a criminal case ipso facto attains finality when the accused applies for probation although it is not executory pending resolution of the application for probation." Moreover in the case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado , 260 SCRA 624 : ". . . While indeed the purpose of the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended) is to save valuable human material, it must not be forgotten that unlike pardon, probation does not obliterate the crime of which the person under probation has been convicted. The reform and rehabilitation of the petitioner cannot justify his retention in the government service. He may seek to reenter government service, but only after he has shown that he is fit to serve once again. It cannot be repeated too often that a public office is a public trust, which demands of those in its service the highest degree of morality." Thus, conviction becomes final when the accused applies for probation. VI. * Conclusion: The depravity of the commission of the crimes depicts whether it involves moral turpitude and more often than not by process of judicial inclusion and exclusion. Thus, only those acts that are inherently immoral and contrary to justice are considered acts involving moral turpitude whether prohibited or merely abhorred. And those that are not within those bounds thereof may or may not involve moral turpitude if circumstances so warrant. HCITAS In administrative cases, conviction by final judgment is required as a condition precedent to administrative action. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude does not ipso facto bring about dismissal from the government service without the required administrative proceedings wherein a finding of guilt must be based on substantial evidence. Thus, the Commission ruled in CSC Resolution No. 000400 dated February 4, 2000, that: ". . . the argument that conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is necessarily punishable by dismissal from the service, the Commission believes that the said penalty may only be imposed as a consequence of an administrative finding of guilt, after the respondent has been duly charged and heard on his defense." It is recommended that in dealing with cases on conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, the Commission should rely on the list of crimes enumerated by the Supreme Court in its decisions, such as in Zari vs. Flores, 94 SCRA 317, as follows: 1. Forgeries; 2. Falsification of Public Document; 3. Mutilation of Public Records; 4. Fabrication of Evidence; 5. Perjury and/or giving false testimony; 6. Direct Bribery; 7. Murder; 8. Rape; 9. Dueling; TcSHaD 10. Estafa, Embezzlement; 11. Estafa Through Falsification of Public Document; 12. Arson; 13. Robbery with homicide; 14. Adultery; 15. Concubinage; 16. Acts of Lasciviousness; 17. Seduction Under Promise of Marriage; 18. Abduction; 19. Bigamy; 20. Libel; 21. Blackmail; 22. Extortion; 23. Violation of the Dangerous Drug Act/Drug Pushing; 24. Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, B.P. Blg. 22; 25. Violation of P.D. 1612, Anti-Fencing Law of 1979; 26. Criminal Conspiracy to Smuggle Opium, Smuggling. In the above crimes, only proof of conviction by final judgment is sufficient to establish the respondent's guilt for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. HAEDIS Thus, with respect to crimes not included in the aforementioned list, there is a need to examine the circumstances attending thereto in committing the crime in order to determine the moral depravity of the criminal act. Emphasis in evaluating the same is the nature of the offense, the depravity of the acts, the relation of the wrongdoer and his acts in the exercise of his office, frequency of conviction and the morale and ethical impact of the offense to his workstation, environment and to the government service as a whole. Prepared by: (SGD.) ABDULLAH M. DATU-DACULA Special Investigator IV Footnotes 1. In re Vinzon, 19 SCRA 815. 2. Villaber vs. COMELEC, 369 SCRA 126.