Dear PAO,
I am married but have been separated-in-fact from my wife for six years. I met Julia, and we lived together in a rented house for almost a year. Now, my estranged wife is accusing me of concubinage and has even brought the matter before the barangay. I was informed by a relative that the intended case to be filed by my wife will not prosper since it is required that the cohabitation must be in a place other than a private dwelling, such as our rented house. Please guide me.
Cardungski
Dear Cardungski,
Concubinage is a crime punishable under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended. Under the said provision of the law:
“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 prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
“The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.”
There are three acts of concubinage, as enumerated in Busuego vs. Office of the Ombudsman Mindanao and Busuego (G.R. No. 196842, October 9, 2013), penned by Associate Justice Jose P. Perez, to wit:
“(1) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
“(2) sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife; and
“(3) cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any other place.” (Underscoring supplied)
For purposes of fully understanding the third punishable act of concubinage, please be guided by the pronouncement of the High Court in Singgit and But-ay vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 264179. February 27, 2023), where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, stated that:
“The Court finds 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.
“The use of the term “private dwelling” in the Information, instead of “conjugal dwelling,” is of no moment because nothing therein limits the indictment to the first mode of concubinage. At this juncture, We quote with affirmation the following ratiocination of the CA:
“In this case, petitioners argue that the Information alleged that they cohabited in a “private” dwelling and not a “conjugal” dwelling, hence, there can be no crime of concubinage. However, petitioners’ protestations are misplaced. To the mind of this Court, even if the word used in the Information is “private” dwelling, petitioners’ guilt under the third way of committing the crime of concubinage, i.e. “by cohabiting with such woman in any other place,” has been sufficiently proven by the prosecution. Simply put, the term private or conjugal dwelling is immaterial, in the same way that the presence of scandalous circumstance is irrelevant, if the crime was committed through the third way provided under the above-cited article, which is cohabitation “in any other place.”
Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, cohabitation in a rented house falls under “cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any other place,” thus, you and your mistress may still be held liable for concubinage.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
