Crimes involving moral turpitude
1. Concept
1) The two words in the term “moral turpitude” also embody the two components of the concept. The concept and definition of what is “moral” is in itself a stupendously deep and diverse field of study. Lexicographers, for their part, state that the word came to English ultimately from the Latin mos, or custom, which in turn became moralis, and later moral. Moral, as an adjective has been defined as “of or relating to principles or considerations of right and wrong action or good and bad character”; “expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior”; and “conforming to or proceeding from a standard of what is good or right.” (Per Concurring Opinion of Gaerlan, J., in Buenafe v. COMELEC, En Banc, G.R. No. 260374, 28 June 2022)
2) The term turpitude also comes from Latin as turpitudo, from the root turpis, which means vile, foul, or base; thus, turpitude is defined as “inherent baseness of vileness of principle, words, or actions.” Taking these two terms together, moral turpitude has been defined as “an act or behavior that gravely violates the moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of the community”; as “conduct that is contrary to justice, honesty, or morality” and as “the morally culpable quality held to be present in some criminal offenses as distinguished from others.” (Ibid.)
2. Supreme Court to decide
1) Not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude. It is for this reason that “as to what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to determine.” In resolving the foregoing question, the Court is guided by one of the general rules that crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not. (Dela Torre v. COMELEC, En Banc, G.R. No. 121592, 05 July 1996, Per Francisco, J.)
a. Rationale
[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. (Zari v. Flores, A.M. No. [2170-MC] P-1356, 21 November 1979, Per Fernandez, J.)
3. Examples
Among the examples given of crimes of this nature by former Chief Justice Moran are the crime of seduction and the crime of concubinage.2 The crime of which respondent was convicted is falsification of public document, which is indeed of this nature, for the act is clearly contrary to justice, honesty and good morals. Hence, such crime involves moral turpitude. Indeed, it is well-settled that “embezzlement, forgery, robbery, and swindling are crimes which denote moral turpitude and, as a general rule, all crimes of which fraud is an element are looked on as involving moral turpitude” (58 C.J.S., 1206). (De Jesus-Paras v. Vailoces, En Banc, A.C. No. 439, 12 April 1961, Per Angelo, J.)
