18 Mary Elizabeth Ty Delgado v. HRET

Mary Elizabeth Ty-Delgado V. HRET and Philip Arreza Pichay G.R. No. 2!"#$ %an&ary 2"' 2#" Facts:

Pichay was convicted by final judgment for four counts of libel. On 9 October 2012 Pichay filed his certificate of candidacy for the !osition of "ember of the #ouse of $e!resentatives for the First %egislative&istrict of 'urigao del 'ur. Petitioner filed a !etition for dis(ualification under 'ection 12 of the Omnibus )lection *ode against Pichay before the *ommission on )lections on the ground that Pichay was convicted of  libel a crime involving moral tur!itude. 'he argued that when Pichay !aid the fine on 1+ February 2011 the five,year !eriod barring him to be a candidate had yet to la!se. Pichay claimed that libel does not necessarily involve moral tur!itude. #e contended that he did not !ersonally !erform the acts !rohibited and his conviction for libel was only because of his  !resumed res!onsibility as !resident of the !ublishing !ublishing com!any. On 1- "ay 201 the Provincial /oard of *anvassers of 'urigao del 'ur !roclaimed Pichay as the duly elected "ember of the #ouse of $e!resentatives for the First %egislative &istrict of  'urigao 'urigao del 'ur. y y,&elgado ,&elgado filed an ad cautelam !etition !etition for (uo warranto warranto before the #$) reiterating that Pichay is ineligible to serve as "ember of the #ouse of $e!resentatives because: 1 he was convicted by final judgment of four counts of libel a crime involving moral tur!itude3 and 2 only two years have !assed since he served his sentence or !aid on 1+ February 2011 the  !enalty im!osed on him. #$) held that Pichay did not !artici!ated the writing of the libelous articles but his conviction was in line with his duty as the !resident ! resident of the !ublishing com!any. /ased on the circumstances the #$) concluded that Pichay4s conviction for libel did not involve moral tur!itude. 5ssue: 678 the #$) gravely abused its its discretion amounting to lac lac or ecess of jurisdiction when it failed to dis(ualify Pichay for his conviction for libel a crime involving moral tur!itude $uling: ; sent senten ence ce by fina finall judg judgme ment nt for for a crim crimee invo involv lvin ing g mora morall tur! tur!it itud udee is a grou ground nd for  for  dis(ualification under 'ection 12 of the Omnibus )lection*ode: 'ec. 12. &is(ualifications. < ;ny !erson who has been declared by com!etent authority insane or incom!etent or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion insurrection rebellion or for any offense for which he was sentenced to a !enalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral tur!itude shall be dis(ualified to be a candidate and to hold any office unless he has been given !lenary !ardon or granted amnesty

"oral tur!itude is defined as everything which is done contrary to justice modesty or good morals3 an act of baseness vileness or de!ravity in the !rivate and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen or to society in general. 5n the !resent case Pichay admits his conviction for four counts of libel. 5n ulfo v. Peo!le of the Phili!!ines the *ourt found Pichay liable for !ublishing the four defamatory articles which are libelous !er se with recless disregard of whether they were false or not. he fact that another  libelous article was !ublished after the filing of the com!laint can be considered as further  evidence of malice. hus Pichay clearly acted with actual malice and intention to do ulterior  and unjustifiable harm. #e committed an =act of baseness vileness or de!ravity in the !rivate duties which he owes his fellow men or society in general> and an act which is =contrary to  justice honesty or good morals he crime of libel would not even be consummated without his !artici!ation as !ublisher of the libelous articles. One who furnishes the means for carrying on the !ublication of a news!a!er  and entrusts its management to servants or em!loyees whom he selects and control s may be said to cause to be !ublished what actually a!!ears and should be held res!onsible therefor whether he was individually concerned in the !ublication or not. ;ccordingly the #$) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac of or ecess of   jurisdiction when it failed to dis(ualify Pichay for his conviction for libel a crime involving moral tur!itude. 'ince Pichay4s ineligibility eisted on the day he filed his certificate of  candidacy and he was never a valid candidate for the !osition of "ember of the #ouse of  $e!resentatives the votes cast for him were considered stray votes.