What crimes involve moral turpitude?

In the concurring opinion of Justice Arturo Brion in one case (Edgar Y. Teves v. COMELEC. 604 Phil. 717. April 28, 2009), he explained that the term moral turpitude was first introduced in the Philippines in 1901 in Act No. 190, otherwise known as the Code of Civil Actions and Special Proceedings.[1] The Act provided that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as lawyer by the Supreme Court upon conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.[2] Subsequently, the term "moral turpitude" has been employed in statutes governing disqualifications of notaries public,[3] priests and ministers in solemnizing marriages,[4] registration to military service,[5] exclusion[6] and naturalization of aliens,[7] discharge of the accused to be a state witness,[8] admission to the bar,[9] suspension and removal of elective local officials,[10] and disqualification of persons from running for any elective local position.[11]In Re Basa,[12] a 1920 case, provided the first instance for the Court to define the term moral turpitude in the context of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the disbarment of a lawyer for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Carlos S. Basa, a lawyer, was convicted of the crime of abduction with consent. The sole question presented was whether the crime of abduction with consent, as punished by Article 446 of the Penal Code of 1887, involved moral turpitude. The Court, finding no exact definition in the statutes, turned to Bouvier's Law Dictionary for guidance and held:
"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.
Crimes Categorized as Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude[13]

Since the early 1920 case of In re Basa,[14] the Supreme Court has maintained its case-by-case categorization of crimes on the basis of moral turpitude and has labeled specific crimes as necessarily involving moral turpitude. The following is a list, not necessarily complete, of the crimes adjudged to involve moral turpitude:
  1. Abduction with consent[15];
  2. Bigamy[16];
  3. Concubinage[17];
  4. Smuggling[18];
  5. Rape[19];
  6. Estafa through falsification of a document[20];
  7. Attempted Bribery[21];
  8. Profiteering[22];
  9. Robbery[23];
  10. Murder, whether consummated or attempted[24];
  11. Estafa[25];
  12. Theft[26];
  13. Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker[27];
  14. Violation of BP Bldg. 22[28];
  15. Falsification of Document[29];
  16. Intriguing against Honor[30];
  17. Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law[31];
  18. Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)[32];
  19. Perjury[33];
  20. Forgery[34];
  21. Direct Bribery[35]; and
  22. Frustrated Homicide[36].
Zari v. Flores[37] is one case that has provided jurisprudence its own list of crimes involving moral turpitude, namely: adultery, concubinage, rape, arson, evasion of income tax, barratry, bigamy, blackmail, bribery, criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium, dueling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract, murder, mutilation of public records, fabrication of evidence, offenses against pension laws, perjury, seduction under the promise of marriage, estafa, falsification of public document, and estafa thru falsification of public document.[38]

Crimes Categorized as Crimes Not Involving Moral Turpitude[39]

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has also had the occasion to categorically rule that certain crimes do not involve moral turpitude, namely:
  1. Minor transgressions of the law (i.e., conviction for speeding)[40]
  2. Illegal recruitment[41]
  3. Slight physical injuries and carrying of deadly weapon (Illegal possession of firearms)[42]
  4. 4. Indirect Contempt[43]
[1] Effective September 1, 1901.

[2] Now RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Section 27.

[3] ACT NO. 2711, Section 234, March 10, 1917.

[4] ACT NO. 3613, Section 45, December 4, 1929.

[5] COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 1, Section 57, December 21, 1935.

[6] COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 473, Section 4, June 17, 1939.

[7] COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 613, Section 29, August 26, 1940.

[8] REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 119, Section 17.

[9] RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, Section 2.

[10] BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 337, Section 60, February 10, 1983; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160, Section 60, January 1, 1992.

[11] BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881, Section 12, December 3, 1985; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160, Section 40, January 1, 1992.

[12] 41 Phil. 275, 276 (1920).

[13] Cited in Rafael Christopher Yap, Bouncing Doctrine: Re-Examining the Supreme Court's Pronouncements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as a Crime of Moral Turpitude (2006), p. 13 (unpublished J.D. thesis, Ateneo de Manila University, on file with the Professional Schools Library, Ateneo de Manila University).

[14] 41 Phil. 275, 276 (1920).

[15] Id.

[16] In Re Marcelino Lontok, 43 Phil. 293 (1922).

[17] In Re Juan C. Isada, 60 Phil 915 (1934); Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, A.C. No. 6148, February 27, 2004, 424 SCRA 42 citing Laguitan v. Tinio, A.C. No. 3049, December 4, 1989, 179 SCRA 837.

[18] In Re Atty. Tranquilino Rovero, 92 Phil. 128 (1952).

[19] Mondano v. Silvosa, 97 Phil. 143 (1955).

[20] In the Matter of Eduardo A. Abesamis, 102 Phil.1182 (1958).

[21] In Re Dalmacio De Los Angeles, 106 Phil 1 (1959).

[22] Tak Ng v. Republic of the Philippines, 106 Phil. 727 (1959).

[23] Paras v. Vailoces, Adm. Case No. 439, April 12, 1961, 1 SCRA 954.

[24] Can v. Galing, G.R. No. L-54258, November 27, 1987, 155 SCRA 663 citing In Re Gutierrez, Adm. Case No. L-363, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 661.

[25] In Re: Atty. Isidro P. Vinzon, Admin. Case No. 561, April 27, 1967, 19 SCRA 815.

[26] Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. L-63652 October 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 422.

[27] Id.

[28] People v. Tuanda, A.M. No. 3360, January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 692; Paolo C. Villaber v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.148326, November 15, 2001, 369 SCRA 126; Selwyn F. Lao v. Atty. Robert W. Medel, A.C. No. 5916, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 227.

[29] University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 89454, April 20, 1992, 208 SCRA 174.

[30] Betguen v. Masangcay, A.M. No. P-93-822, December 1, 1994, 238 SCRA 475.

[31] Dela Torre v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 483, 487, citing Zari v. Flores, 94 SCRA 317, 323 (1979) at 483.

[32] Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado, A.M. No. P-94-1089, August 22, 1996, 260 SCRA 624.

[33] People v. Sorrel, G.R. No. 119332, August 29, 1997, 278 SCRA 368.

[34] Campilan v. Campilan Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-96-1100, April 24, 2002, 381 SCRA 494.

[35] Magno v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 147904, October 4, 2002, 390 SCRA 495.

[36] Soriano v. Dizon, A.C. No. 6792, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 1.

[37] Adm. No. (2170-MC) P-1356, November 21, 1979, 94 SCRA 317, 323.

[38] Cited in Rafael Christopher Yap, Bouncing Doctrine: Re-Examining the Supreme Court's Pronouncements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as a Crime of Moral Turpitude (2006), p. 13 (unpublished J.D. thesis, Ateneo de Manila University, on file with the Professional Schools Library, Ateneo de Manila University); 41 Phil. 275, 276 (1920).

[39] Id.

[40] Ng Teng Lin v. Republic, 103 Phil. 484 (1959).

[41] Court Administrator v. San Andres, A.M. No. P-89-345, May 31, 1991, 197 SCRA 704.

[42] People v. Yambot, G.R. No. 120350, October 13, 2000, 343 SCRA 20.

[43] Garcia v. De Vera, A.C. No. 6052, December 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 27.