G.R. No. 180363 April 28, 2009
EDGAR Y. TEVES, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HERMINIO G. TEVES
Facts:
In Oct 2007, petitioner was officially disqualified to run for a congressional seat in the May 2007 election because of a Sandiganbayan decision rendered against him in 2005 involving a crime, allegedly, of moral turpitude.
The Comelec likewise rendered the issue raised by petitioner as moot since the latter lost in the said election.
Issue:
Whether or not there WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION when Comelec disqualified petitioner in view of the petitioner’s conviction.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the crime for which petitioner was convicted in Sandiganbayan in 2005 did not involve moral turpitude.
As found in the Sandiganbayan, petitioner, then Mayor of Valencia, did not use his influence, authority or power to gain pecuniary or financial interest in the cockpit. Second, while possession of business and pecuniary interest in a cockpit licensed by the local government unit is expressly prohibited by the present LGC, however, its illegality does not mean that violation thereof necessarily involves moral turpitude or makes such possession of interest inherently immoral
The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal per se. It was held that it was not for the judiciary to settle questions which is for other branches of the government to deal with.
Being so, the Court reversed the Comelec’s decision of disqualifying petitioner. The case was not moot since the resolution of which would determine petitioner’s qualification in future elections.
