G.R. No. 219603 Case Digest

G.R. No. 219603

Mary Elizabeth Ty-Delgado

vs HRET and Philip Arreza Pichay

Facts:

September 2008, SC convicted Pichay of four counts of libel. October 2012, Pichay filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member of house of representatives for the 1st district of Surigao del Sur for the May 2013 elections.

February 2013, Ty-Delgado filed a petition for disqualification against Pichay before COMELEC on the ground of the libel conviction, a crime of moral turpitude; and that the 5-year period barring him to be a candidate had yet to lapse.

Pichay answered that the petition for disqualification was filed out of time and argued that libel does not necessarily involve moral turpitude because his conviction was based only on his presumed responsibility as the president of the publishing company.

May 2013, Pichay was proclaimed as duly elected member of the HR. Ty-Delgado then filed an ad cautelam petition for quo warranto before HRET reiterating that Pichay is ineligible. COMELEC dismissed the petition for disqualification for lack of jurisdiction. HRET ruled that that it had jurisdiction over the present quo warranto petition but concluded that Pichay's libel conviction did not involve moral turpitude.

Issues: HRET erred in its decision.

Ruling:

We find merit in the petition.

A sentence by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disqualification under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code:

Sec. 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 was 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.

The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified. (Emphasis supplied)

Moral turpitude is 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.7 Although not every criminal act involves moral turpitude, the Court is guided by one of the general rules that crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude while crimes mala prohibita do not.