Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1930 > December 1930 Decisions > G.R. No. 34484 December 13, 1930 - FERNANDO MAULIT v. DOMINGO SAMONTE

055 Phil 410:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 34484. December 13, 1930.]

FERNANDO MAULIT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DOMINGO SAMONTE, Respondent-Appellant.

Provincial Fiscal Aquino for Appellant.

Liborio B. Ines for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; CONCUBINAGE; PRIVATE OFFENSE. — It may be true that concubinage is not much better than adultery and that the two crimes are similar in nature, but it is evident from the language of articles 433 and 437 of the Penal Code that the authors thereof considered concubinage a lesser offense than adultery and therefore prescribed separate and different penalties for the two offenses. As far as concubinage is concerned there is no provision in Act No. 1773, or in any other act, which directly indicates that it is a public crime and that the penalty for concubinage cannot be remitted under article 435 of the Penal Code.


D E C I S I O N


OSTRAND, J.:


Fernando Maulit has been legally married to Maxima Agcaoili since the year 1919. In 1928 he abandoned his wife and lived with a concubine, with whom he had a child. At the instance of his legitimate wife, Maulit was prosecuted for concubinage before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte and sentenced to suffer one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, and upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the sentence was affirmed. 1 Before he began to serve the sentence, his wife executed the following document:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"AFFIDAVIT

"I, Maxima Agcaoili de Maulit, of legal age, married and at present dispensary attendant of the Hospital at Dingras, Ilocos Norte, after being duly sworn to according to law, depose and say:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That I have been married to Mr. Fernando Maulit of Banna, Ilocos Norte, and during our marriage life we had five children.

"Said Fernando Maulit, my husband, during this conjugal life, fell in love with one Sabina Tabanag and continued so for a time for which reason I was compelled to sue him and said Sabina Tabanag to court, under the crime called ’amancebamiento.’

"This cause has been presented in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, and said Honorable Court found my husband, Fernando Maulit, guilty of the crime and sentenced him to one year, eight months and twenty-one days, which sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.

"During the period when the above-mentioned cause was being at the court, my husband, said Fernando Maulit, has repented from what he has committed against me and was converted by himself once more a good father and husband as he had been before he has committed the above crime.

"In view of this change which I found in my husband, and under these presents, without having been influenced, by any one nor having been promised anything for doing this; but all and every word that I stated in this affidavit were voluntarily made by me with my free will; I hereby give full pardon to my husband, Fernando Maulit; and respectfully requests all authorities which are concerned to extend the same pardon to said Fernando Maulit.

"In testimony hereof, I set my hand this 9th day of October, 1930, at Dingras, Ilocos Norte."cralaw virtua1aw library

(Signed and sworn to.)

Notwithstanding the condonation or pardon granted the convict by his wife, he was nevertheless imprisoned on the theory that under the provisions of Act No. 1773, concubinage was no longer a private offense which could be extinguished by condonation. Maulit’s wife thereupon filed a petition in the Court of First Instance for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was granted, and the presiding judge, Fermin Mariano, held that concubinage was still a private offense extinguishable by condonation or pardon. His Honor consequently ordered the release both of Maulit and of the concubine, and the provincial fiscal, on behalf of the provincial governor, appealed to this court.

The controversy relates to Act No. 1773 in which the crimes of adultery, seduction, abduction, rape, calumny, and insults are classified as public crimes which can no longer be extinguished by condonation, pardon, or remission of penalty by the aggrieved person, with the exception that in cases of seduction, abduction, or rape, a legal marriage of the accused or convicted to the aggrieved person will extinguish the criminal liability. The crime of concubinage is not mentioned in the Act, but counsel for the appellant contends that the similarity between adultery and concubinage is so close that the legislators in making adultery a public crime must also have had in mind concubinage as a form of adultery.

We cannot quite agree with counsel. It may be true that concubinage is not much better than adultery and that the two crimes are similar in nature. But it is evident from the language of articles 433 and 437 of the Penal Code that the authors thereof considered concubinage a lesser offense than adultery and therefore prescribed separate and different penalties for the two offenses. As far as concubinage is concerned, there is no provision in Act No. 1773, or in any other act, which directly indicates that it is a public crime and that the penalty for concubinage cannot be remitted under article 435 of the Penal Code. It must also be remembered that we are dealing with a criminal statute and consequently are bound to construe it in favor of the accused.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. People v. Maulit and Tabanag, G. R. No. 32682, promulgated September 2, 1930, not reported.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1930 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 33494 December 2, 1930 - SERAPIA OCHOA v. SERAFIN DE LEON

    055 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 32776 December 4, 1930 - SEVERO DOMINGO v. SANTOS ET., AL.

    055 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 33537 December 5, 1930 - ESCUDERO ELEC. SERVICE CO. v. MARGARITA ROXAS Y AYALA VIUDA DE SORIANO

    055 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 33113 December 13, 1930 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. LUCIO ECHAUS

    055 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. 33131 December 13, 1930 - EMILIO GONZALEZ LA O v. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INS., CO.

    055 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 33304 December 13, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTE SOTELO

    055 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 33399 December 13, 1930 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. LAGUNA-TAYABAS BUS CO.

    055 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 34450 December 13, 1930 - BENITO DE LOS REYES v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS

    055 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 34484 December 13, 1930 - FERNANDO MAULIT v. DOMINGO SAMONTE

    055 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 33584 December 15, 1930 - MARCELO ENRIQUEZ v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    055 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 32663 December 15, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO FRANCISCO

    055 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. 34616 December 15, 1930 - HERMENEGILDO MAKAPAGAL v. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA

    055 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 33434 December 16, 1930 - MUNICIPALITY OF TARLAC v. TOMAS BESA

    055 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 33380 December 17, 1930 - TEODORA ASTUDILLO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    055 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 33463 December 18, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO BORINAGA

    055 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 33196 December 19, 1930 - TAN SENGUAN & CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    055 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 32336 December 20, 1930 - JULIO C. ABELLA v. GUILLERMO B. FRANCISCO

    055 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 32443 December 20, 1930 - INOCENTA RAMAS VIUDA DE PENALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    055 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 32465 December 20, 1930 - LA SOCIEDAD DALISAY v. JANUARIO DE LOS REYES

    055 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 32629 December 20, 1930 - LUIS TORIBIO v. JULIAN DECASA

    055 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 33318 December 20, 1930 - SMITH v. MUNICIPALITY OF ZAMBOANGA

    055 Phil 466

  • G.R. No. 33365 December 20, 1930 - TEOPISTA DOLAR v. FIDEL DIANCIN

    055 Phil 479

  • G.R. Nos. 33393-33398 December 20, 1930 - LI TECK SAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    055 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 34539 December 20, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    055 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 32226 December 29, 1930 - ESTANISLAO REYES v. SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ

    055 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 32260 December 29, 1930 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PABLO ROCHA

    055 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 32433 December 29, 1930 - FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN v. CRISANTO DE LA FUENTE

    055 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 32471 December 29, 1930 - SEVERINO JAYME v. JUAN D. SALVADOR

    055 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 32598 December 29, 1930 - MARTIN GONZALEZ v. SISENANDO TURLA

    055 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 32640 December 29, 1930 - WALTER A. SMITH & CO. v. CADWALLADER GIBSON LUMBER CO.

    055 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 32906 December 29, 1930 - ADORACION ROSALES DE ECHAUS ET AL. v. MARIA GAN

    055 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 32945 December 29, 1930 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. WALTER A. SMITH & CO.

    055 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 33176 December 29, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO MARIÑO

    055 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 33646 December 29, 1930 - PHILIPPINE LAND IMPROVEMENT CO. v. SIMEON BLAS

    055 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 33654 December 29, 1930 - KABANKALAN SUGAR CO. v. JOSEFA PACHECO

    055 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 34428 December 29, 1930 - BALTAZAR MORALES v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    055 Phil 565