Moral Turpitude and Fencing: Understanding Disqualification in Philippine Elections

The Supreme Court has long held that certain criminal convictions can bar a person from running for public office. One such ground is conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude. But what exactly counts as moral turpitude? A 1996 ruling provides a clear answer: fencing, or dealing in stolen goods, is a crime of moral turpitude that disqualifies a person from seeking elective local positions.

The Case of Dela Torre v. COMELEC

Rolando Dela Torre ran for Mayor of Cavinti, Laguna in the May 1995 elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualified him under Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160). This provision disqualifies those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude, or for an offense punishable by one year or more of imprisonment, within two years after serving sentence.

Dela Torre had been convicted of violating Presidential Decree No. 1612, the Anti-Fencing Law. His conviction became final in January 1991. He later received probation, which he argued suspended his disqualification. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and affirmed COMELEC's decision.

What Is Moral Turpitude?

The Court adopted the definition from Black's Law Dictionary: moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties a person owes to fellow men or society, contrary to accepted rules of right and duty, justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.

Not every crime involves moral turpitude. Generally, crimes mala in se (wrong in themselves) involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita (wrong only because prohibited by statute) do not. However, this classification is not always decisive. Whether a crime involves moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact, depending on the circumstances surrounding the violation.

Why Fencing Involves Moral Turpitude

Fencing is defined under Section 2 of P.D. 1612 as the act of any person who, with intent to gain, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells, or disposes of any article known to be derived from robbery or theft. The elements include: a prior robbery or theft; the accused, not being a principal or accomplice, deals in the stolen property; the accused knows or should have known the property's illegal origin; and there is intent to gain.

The third element is key. Actual knowledge that property is stolen shows the same malicious deprivation of another's property as the robbery or theft itself. Both the fence and the thief invade another's peaceful dominion for gain, violating basic duties of honesty and good morals. The Court noted that even "should have known" knowledge suffices, since circumstances often forewarn a vigilant buyer—such as unusual time or place of sale, or a seller not regularly engaged in that business.

Probation Does Not Erase the Conviction

Dela Torre argued that his probation suspended the legal consequences of his conviction. The Court clarified that probation only suspends the execution of the sentence. The conviction itself remains valid and final. A judgment of conviction becomes final when the accused applies for probation, even if execution is stayed pending resolution of the application. Therefore, probation does not remove the disqualification under Section 40(a).

Practical Takeaways

• A conviction for fencing under P.D. 1612 involves moral turpitude and disqualifies a person from running for local elective office.
• Moral turpitude is determined case by case, but crimes involving dishonesty, theft, or dealing in stolen goods generally qualify.
• Probation does not erase a conviction or its legal effects, including election disqualification.
• Candidates with prior convictions should verify their eligibility before filing certificates of candidacy.
• The Supreme Court, not lower courts, ultimately decides whether a crime involves moral turpitude.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.