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.