Case Summary (G.R. No. 121592)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner: Rolando P. Dela Torre
Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Marcial Villanueva
Key Dates
• June 1, 1990 – MTC conviction for violation of P.D. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law)
• November 14, 1990 – RTC affirmation of conviction
• January 18, 1991 – Conviction became final
• May 6, 1995 – COMELEC resolution declaring petitioner disqualified
• August 28, 1995 – COMELEC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
• September 8, 1995 – Filing of certiorari petition
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered post-1990)
• Republic Act No. 7160, Sec. 40(a) (Local Government Code of 1991) – disqualification for convictions involving moral turpitude or imprisonment of one year or more within two years after serving sentence
• Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law)
• Black’s Law Dictionary – definition of moral turpitude
Issues Presented
- Whether the crime of fencing under P.D. 1612 involves moral turpitude.
- Whether a grant of probation suspends the applicability of Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code.
Definition and Determination of Moral Turpitude
“Moral turpitude” is an act of baseness or depravity contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. Crimes mala in se typically involve moral turpitude, whereas mala prohibita do not. The ultimate determination requires analysis of the act’s inherent immorality rather than reliance on statutory classification alone.
Elements of Fencing and Moral Turpitude Analysis
Under P.D. 1612, fencing occurs when a person, knowing or having reason to know that property derives from robbery or theft, acquires or deals in it with intent to gain. The Court identified four elements:
- A prior robbery or theft;
- Non-participant buys, receives or deals in proceeds of that crime;
- Actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of stolen origin;
- Intent to gain.
The element of knowledge is indicative of malicious deprivation of rightful property, equating the “fence” with the original felon in undermining private duties owed to society. Civil Code provisions (Arts. 19–22, 2154) reinforce the duty to act with honesty and return ill-gotten gains.
Legal Effect of Probation
Probation suspends execution of sentence but does not nullify the co
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 121592)
Procedural History
- Petitioner Rolando P. Dela Torre filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing two resolutions in SPA No. 95-047 issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
- On May 6, 1995, the COMELEC declared the petitioner disqualified from running for Mayor of Cavinti, Laguna in the May 8, 1995 elections, under Section 40(a) of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991).
- On August 28, 1995, the COMELEC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which had argued that a probation granted on December 21, 1994 suspended the legal consequences of his conviction, rendering Section 40(a) inapplicable.
- The Supreme Court resolved two issues: (1) whether the crime of fencing involves moral turpitude, and (2) whether the grant of probation affects the applicability of Section 40(a).
Facts
- On June 1, 1990, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) convicted petitioner for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) in Criminal Case No. 14723.
- The Regional Trial Court affirmed the conviction on November 14, 1990; the conviction became final on January 18, 1991.
- The petitioner applied for and was granted probation on December 21, 1994, which suspended execution of the sentence and its legal consequences.
- The COMELEC determined, based on documentary evidence, that the offense of fencing involves moral turpitude and thus invoked Section 40(a) to disqualify the petitioner.
Issues Presented
- Whether the crime of fencing, as defined under P.D. 1612, involves moral turpitude, thereby triggering disqualification under Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code.
- Whether a grant of probation, which suspends the execution of a sentence, affects the applicability of the disqualification provision in Section 40(a).
Applicable Legal Principles
- Section 40(a), Republic Ac