Moral Turpitude
Moral Turpitude
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > December 1959 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-13017 December 23, 1959 - IN RE: TAK NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
EN BANC
SYLLABUS
1. WORDS AND PHRASES; "MORAL TURPITUDE" DEFINED. — "Moral turpitude" has
been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social
duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man (Traders &
General Ins. Co. v. Russell, Tex. Civ. App., 99 S.W. [2d] 1079) or conduct contrary
to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals (Marah v. State Bar of California, 210
Cal. 303, 291 P. 583).
DECISION
BARRERA, J.:
This is an appeal taken from the decision dated August 10, 1957 of the Court of
First Instance of Manila (in Nat. Case No. 29932), denying petitioner’s application
for naturalization.
It appears that petitioner Tak Ng, also known as Teddy Ng, was born in Manila on
January 9, 1922. He resided in the Philippines since birth and has never gone
abroad. He is employed as a salesman in the St. George Grocery and Cold Store,
Inc., at 242 Quezon Boulevard, Manila, with a salary of more than P2,200.00 a
year. He was single when he filed his petition for naturalization on June 15, 1956,
although since 1951, he had been cohabiting extra-maritally with Leonarda
Cabacungan, with whom he had 3 children, namely, Adelaida, Anthony, and Alfred,
all surnamed Ng. He finally married her on May 15, 1957. He was able to secure
clearances from the Manila Police Department, the City Fiscal’s Office, the NBI, the
Bureau of Prisons, the NICA, the Bureau of Immigration, the Philippine
Constabulary, the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the CAFA,
the Anti-Dummy Board, and the Central Bank of the Philippines. However,
according to Exhibit O-1, he was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila
(in Crim. Case No. 6811) on October 29, 1948, of profiteering, 1 and sentenced to
pay a fine of P50.00 and, as a consequence, was reprimanded and warned by the
Deportation Board 1 on February 8, 1957 (Exh. 1-A). He speaks and writes English
and Tagalog. He does not own any real property in the Philippines. He believes in
the fundamental principles underlying the Constitution. He has evinced a sincere
desire to learn the customs and traditions of the Filipino people. He is not opposed
to any organized government, or affiliated with any association, or group of persons
who uphold and teach doctrines defending or advocating the necessity or propriety
of violence, personal assault, or assassination, for the success and predominance of
men’s ideas. He is not a polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy. He is
in good health, and it is his intention in good faith to become a Filipino citizen.
As vouching witnesses, he presented Messrs. Hilario M. Uaje and Pedro Nieva, Jr.
Uaje declared that he knew petitioner for more than 11 years up to the time he
took the stand; and that he knew him as one who believes in the principles
underlying the Constitution and as a person of good moral character, with a fixed
income of P150.00 a month. Nieva, Jr., on the other hand, testified that he knew
petitioner since 1944 and had observed him to be a person attached to the
principles underlying the Constitution and disposed to the good order and happiness
of the Filipino people.
After reception of the evidence, the court, on August 10, 1957, rendered a decision
denying petitioner’s application for naturalization, on the grounds that: (1) he was
convicted of profiteering, on October 29, 1948, by the Court of First Instance of
Manila, and sentenced to pay a fine of P50.00, as a result of which, he was charged
before the Deportation Board which reprimanded and warned him on February 8,
1957; and (2) he falsely stated in his declaration of intention dated November 27,
1954, that he had no children, when in fact he had already 3 at the time with
Leonarda Cabacungan.
As to the first ground above-stated, appellant contends that his conviction by the
Court of First Instance of Manila for profiteering, on October 29, 1948, as a result of
which, he was fined P50.00, should not be taken against him, because he was a
mere employee of the St. George Grocery and Cold Store, Inc. at the time; that he
had nothing to do with the fixing of the selling price of commodities sold therein;
and that his having pleaded guilty to the information charging him of the offense,
was upon the advice of his lawyer and the manager of said establishment.
The trial court did not accept this explanation and we find no reason to do
otherwise. It is hard to believe that appellant would suffer to have his name stained
with a criminal record by pleading guilty to said information, if he had absolutely
nothing to do with the offense charged. As the lower court observed, it is not easy
to believe that petitioner did not know that he was selling over the price fixed by
the authorities, as these price limits are made known to the stores.
In respect of the second ground, petitioner claims that he failed to marry Leonarda
Cabacungan in 1951, because she was then only 17 or 18 years of age, and her
parents objected to their marriage because he was a Chinese citizen.
Needless to say, the act of petitioner in cohabiting with Leonarda for 6 years
without the benefit of marriage, clearly indicates his bad moral character, which
disqualifies him from becoming a Filipino citizen. 6 The fact that petitioner married
her on May 16, 1957, did not thereby cure his disqualification for lack of good moral
character. 7
We agree with the trial court and the Solicitor General that petitioner’s statement in
his declaration of intention and in his petition for naturalization that he was single
and that he did not have any child at all, when in truth and in fact, he had then
already 3 children with Leonarda Cabacungan, is a deliberate falsehood amounting
to perjury, as he concealed his true status under oath and, likewise, shows
petitioner’s wanton disregard for truth, hence, lack of good moral character
disabling him from acquiring Philippine citizenship.
Wherefore, finding no error in the judgment of the court a quo, the same is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the petitioner appellant. So ordered.
Endnotes:
3. In People v. Tiu Ua, 96 Phil., 738, 51 Off. Gaz., [4], 1863, it was held that
profiteering affects the poor people in general, and that any raise in the price above
that authorized by law, causes a great hardship to the country.
December-1959 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. L-13303 December 10, 1959 - ANG BUN PHEK alias KUN PUE GUAN v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-11855 December 23, 1959 - LEE SUAN AY v. EMILIO GALANG
G.R. No. L-12088 December 23, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MORO
SUMAGUINA MACARANDANG
G.R. No. L-12948 December 23, 1959 - MARCELO VITAL v. PASTOR MAGTOTO
G.R. No. L-13017 December 23, 1959 - IN RE: TAK NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL.
G.R. No. L-13715 December 23, 1959 - FELIX V. VALENCIA v. CEBU PORTLAND
CEMENT CO.
G.R. No. L-11525 December 24, 1959 - IN RE: ANANDRAM VALIRAM DARGANI
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. L-12207 December 24, 1959 - JUAN PALACIOS v. MARIA CATIMBANG
PALACIOS
G.R. No. L-13932 December 24, 1959 - JOSE V. DE LOS SANTOS v. NICASIO
YATCO
G.R. No. L-12408 December 28, 1959 - LEE CHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. L-14022 December 28, 1959 - IN RE: YU KHENG CHIAU v. REPUBLIC
OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. L-14190 December 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRECITO
BULALAKE
G.R. No. L-9343 December 29, 1959 - MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO. v.
VALENTIN R. LIM
G.R. Nos. L-10994 & L-11012 December 29, 1959 - GOLAY-BUCHEL & CIE. v.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
G.R. No. L-11968 December 29, 1959 - DOROTEO ONOFRE v. PASTOR P. REYES
G.R. No. L-12793 December 29, 1959 - MEDINA BROTHERS & COMPANY v.
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
G.R. No. L-13025 December 29, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODULO
ROGADO
G.R. No. L-13065 December 29, 1959 - LINO SALES v. JOSE SANTOS
G.R. No. L-13126 December 29, 1959 - FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES v. SOTERO
CABAHUG
G.R. No. L-13926 December 29, 1959 - IN RE: FELISA F. HARRIS v. ROSE
HARRIS