Can a man be convicted of concubinage even if the Information alleges that he cohabited with his mistress in a "private dwelling" instead of a "conjugal dwelling"?
CASE TITLE:
Ariel Cadayday Singgit and Genivieve Mayondo But-ay v. People of the
Philippines
G.R. No. 264179, February 27, 2023
FACTS OF THE CASE
Ariel Cadayday Singgit was legally married to Consanita
Rubio Singgit, with whom he had five children. Around 2008, marital problems
arose when Consanita discovered Ariel’s extramarital affairs. Due to emotional
stress from discovering her husband's infidelity and having a heart condition,
Consanita left the conjugal home in Talisay City, Cebu, and returned to her
parents' residence in Negros.
In 2010, Ariel began an affair with a 19-year-old woman,
Genivieve Mayondo But-ay, whom he met through a textmate setup. Ariel failed to
disclose his marital status. The relationship progressed quickly, and Genivieve
became pregnant. Ariel brought her to Mindanao to deliver the child away from
people who knew about his marriage. After the child’s birth, they lived
together in various locations, including Cebu, Mindanao, and Negros, mimicking
a husband-and-wife relationship.
Consanita, upon discovering the affair, made several
confrontational visits to the conjugal home, where she found Genivieve living
with Ariel and witnessed the two acting as a couple. She also saw photos of the
child on Genivieve’s Facebook. In one visit, Consanita found Ariel naked and
Genivieve beside him in a room of their house.
Multiple witnesses, including neighbors and long-time
acquaintances, testified that Ariel introduced Genivieve as his new wife and
they openly lived together. In 2013, Consanita filed a criminal complaint for
concubinage.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found both
accused guilty. Ariel was sentenced to prisión correccional of 6 months
and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. Genivieve was sentenced to destierro.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and subsequently the Court of Appeals
(CA) affirmed the decision.
The defense argued that the Information used the term
“private dwelling” instead of “conjugal dwelling,” rendering it defective. The
courts rejected this argument, citing that the third mode of committing
concubinage—cohabiting in any other place—was clearly alleged and
proven.
Ariel and Genivieve brought their case to the Supreme Court
via a Petition for Review under Rule 45.
ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction
of Ariel and Genivieve for the crime of concubinage despite the Information
citing a “private dwelling” instead of a “conjugal dwelling.”
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that
the phrase “private dwelling” does not render the Information defective because
it falls within the third mode of committing concubinage under Article 334 of
the Revised Penal Code—cohabiting with the woman in any other place.
The Court affirmed that the essential elements of
concubinage were present: (1) Ariel was married; (2) he cohabited with a woman
not his wife; and (3) the woman (Genivieve) knew he was married. It emphasized
that multiple witnesses testified to their cohabitation and that even Genivieve
herself admitted to living with Ariel and bearing his child.
The Court modified Ariel’s sentence under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law to imprisonment of 2 months and 1 day as minimum to 6 months as
maximum, and affirmed Genivieve’s penalty of destierro.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The
Decision dated May 18, 2021 and the Resolution dated June 21, 2022 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 13876 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioners Ariel Cadayday Singgit and Genivieve Mayondo But-ay are both found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of concubinage.
Petitioner Ariel Cadayday Singgit is sentenced to suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor or imprisonment for two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to six
(6) months, as maximum. On the other hand, petitioner Genivieve But-ay shall
suffer the penalty of destierro.
SO ORDERED.”
Should the law on concubinage be revisited to reflect
modern views on gender equality and marital rights, given that only the man is
imprisoned while the woman merely suffers exile?
IMPORTANT DOCTRINES:
- "Cohabitation
in any other place"
“The term ‘cohabit’ means to dwell together, in the
manner of husband and wife, for some period of time, as distinguished from
occasional, transient interviews for unlawful intercourse.”
This expands the interpretation of concubinage beyond the “conjugal dwelling.”
- On
sufficiency of Information:
“What is controlling is not the title of the complaint,
nor the designation of the offense... but the description of the crime charged
and the particular facts therein recited.”
The term “private dwelling” was deemed sufficient to inform the accused of the
charge.
- Conviction
under the third mode of concubinage does not require scandalous
circumstances
“The presence of scandalous circumstance is irrelevant,
if the crime was committed through the third way provided under Article 334.”
CLASSIFICATION: Criminal Law
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
No comments:
Post a Comment