Photo from Unsplash | Seth Johnston
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The elements of the crimes of adultery and concubinage, as well as the imposable penalties, are provided under Articles 333 and 334 of the Revised Penal Code:
Article 333. Who are guilty of adultery.– Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual inter-course with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.
Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the offended spouse, the penalty next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed.
Article 334. Concubinage.- Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in .any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The elements of the crimes of adultery and concubinage were enumerated as follows:
Elements of adultery:
- That the woman is married;
- That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;
- That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be married.
Elements of concubinage:
- That the man must be married.
- That he committed any of the following acts:
- Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling.
- Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife;
- Cohabiting with her in any other place.
- That as regards the woman, she must know him to be married.
(SOURCE: The Revised Penal Code Book II by Luis B. Reyes)
Jurisprudence
In the recently decided case of Ariel Cadayday Singgit and Genivieve Mayondo But-Ay vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 264179. February 27, 2023, Consanita R. Singgit (private complainant) testified that she and petitioner Ariel were legally married. In 2008, she caught her husband having a mistress and because she had a heart problem, she left their conjugal home. By then, her husband had sexual relations with many women.
In 2010, her husband brought his mistress, petitioner Genivieve, to their conjugal dwelling and the two lived there and eventually, the two had a child.
Consequently, in January 2011, private complainant went back to their conjugal house together with a friend named Gemma and a barangay tanod, and there she saw her husband naked in a room with his mistress (Genivieve) standing beside him. Private complainant demanded her husband to leave their house because she and their children will occupy it, but her husband refused.
In February 2011, private complainant, together with her same friend Gemma and a barangay tanod, again went to their conjugal home in Talisay. By that time, the mistress (Genivieve) was no longer there. Meanwhile, Ariel pushed private complainant while she was standing at the door. Subsequently, on August 13, 2013, private complainant had Genivieve summoned to the Barangay Hall. During their meeting, Genivieve admitted her illicit affair with Ariel in the presence of the Barangay Captain.
The MTCC ruled that Ariel and Genivieve were guilty as charged. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime of concubinage; that Ariel and Genivieve openly cohabited as husband and wife, with the former formally introducing the latter as his new wife to their neighbors; and that there was enough evidence to show that Genivieve was completely aware that Ariel is a married man when they cohabited together under one roof.
Aggrieved, Ariel and Genivieve interposed an appeal to the RTC. They asserted, inter alia, that the use of the term “private dwelling” in the Information, instead of “conjugal dwelling,” is insufficient to charge them of the crime of concubinage. They posit that since a “private dwelling” is not part of the definition of concubinage under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), they could not be found guilty therefor.
The RTC rejected Ariel and Genivieve’s supplication. It ruled that notwithstanding the use of the term “private dwelling” instead of “conjugal dwelling” in the Information does not negate the crime of concubinage because “the word dwelling refers to abode, home, house, shelter, habitation, residence or living quarters, thus conjugal dwelling, or any other place, by logic and reason, is necessarily included in private dwelling.”
The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. It held that the use of the term “private dwelling” in the Information is inconsequential because the same is deemed included in the third way of committing the crime of concubinage, i.e., “by cohabiting with such woman in any other place.”
In addition, the CA ruled that, indeed, the prosecution was able to prove that Ariel and Genivieve cohabited with each other as husband and wife. It even pointed out that Genivieve herself admitted that she and Ariel lived together in Mindanao for months while awaiting the birth of their love child.
The Supreme Court held that the Information sufficiently established all the elements of concubinage, and that the same were proven by the prosecution. It states that Ariel is a married man who is cohabiting with his mistress in a private dwelling which, in this case, falls under the third manner of committed concubinage, i.e., by cohabiting with his paramour in any other place.
Related Articles:
- Qualified Seduction vs. Simple Seduction – ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES
- Battered Women Syndrome: 3 Cycles of Violence | Alburo Law Offices
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.