Understanding Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

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 Black’s 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.” (Bouvier’s 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.