Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1930 > December 1930 Decisions > G.R. No. 32663 December 15, 1930 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO FRANCISCO

055 Phil 1008:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 32663. December 15, 1930.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AGAPITO FRANCISCO and JOSEFINA MANTELO, Defendants-Appellants.

Casal & Jose for Appellants.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

Gregorio Perfecto for private prosecution.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; CONCUBINAGE. — Act No. 1773 converted adultery and several other private crimes into public crimes, but the crime of concubinage was not included. This court holds that concubinage is still a private offense and subject to pardon by the offended party.


D E C I S I O N


OSTRAND, J.:


Patrocinio David accuses her husband, Agapito Francisco, and one Josefina Mantelo of the crime of concubinage, the complaint being filed for the purpose of obtaining a divorce.

The complainant and the accused Agapito Francisco have been legally married since February 1, 1910. On December 30, 1922, the relations between the spouses became strained due to the fact that the wife had discovered that the husband had maintained illicit relations with another woman, and she threatened him with separation if he did not mend his ways. The husband promised improvement and to demonstrate his sincerity, confessed that he had two children with his codefendant, Josefina Mantelo, and proposed that if Patrocinio would allow him to pay P200 a month for the maintenance of said children, he would discontinue his relations with Josefina. Patrocinio accepted the proposition and continued to live with her husband until 1925, when they separated after entering into an agreement in writing to that effect. The agreement, among other things, contains the following clauses:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Whereas as it has become impossible for the husband and the wife to live together due to the fact that the former has sustained intimate relations with one Josefina Mantelo and that as a result of said relations, a child, by the name of Josefina, was born on the 11th of June, 1921, and baptized in the Catholic Parochial Church in Quiapo, Manila, on the 7th of January, 1923, and that another child named Dolores Loreto was born on December 10, 1922, and baptized in the same church on June 10, 1923, and that a male child was born on December 30, 1924; . . .

"4. This contract will subsist as long as both parties comply faithfully with each and all of its terms; but nothing that has here been stipulated signified renunciation of any rights which each of the parties named have under the law."cralaw virtua1aw library

The accused continued their illicit relations, and on February 24, 1927, still another child was born, and this action was thereupon instituted upon the complaint of Patrocinio.

Upon trial the court below found the defendants guilty as charged in the complaint and sentenced Agapito Francisco to one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional with the accessory penalties. His coaccused was sentenced to suffer two years, four months and one day of banishment.

The crime committed is concubinage as defined by article 437 of the Penal Code. That article is included in the same chapter as the articles on adultery and prior to the enactment of Act No. 1773, both crimes were regarded as of a private nature which might be extinguished at any time by condonation. The Act mentioned converted adultery and several other private crimes into public crimes, but the crime of concubinage seems to have been overlooked, and in the case of United States v. Rivera and Vitug (28 Phil., 13), this court held that it was still a private offense subject to pardon by the offended party.

At the trial of this case the defendants endeavored to prove that the offended party had condoned her husband for the crime committed, but the trial judge, being under the impression that concubinage was a public crime in common with adultery, refused to receive evidence of condonation. Upon appeal to this court, it was held that the court below erred in refusing the admission of evidence of condonation, and the case was consequently remanded to the court below for the acceptance of such evidence. 1

At the new trial, the accused presented six witnesses, namely Natividad Sabinay, Inigo Regalado, Carlos Preysler, Luis Elzingre Dumas, Juan B. Alegre, and the accused Josefina Mantelo. The testimony of these witnesses is of little value in determining whether the offended party has at any time condoned her husband. The testimony of Natividad Sabinay seems so unreliable that no weight can be given to her assertions. Inigo Regalado testified that on one occasion in 1923 or 1924 he heard Patrocinio asking Josefina Mantelo if Agapito Francisco had slept in the house of Josefina the night before; that Josefina denied that Agapito had been there that night. It will be readily seen that this testimony has no direct bearing on the question of condonation.

The testimony of Carlos Preysler and Luis Elzingre Dumas is to the effect that in a certain club, Patrocinio had told them that she then had nothing to do with her husband and was separated from him. That does not indicate that she was disposed to pardon her spouse.

The witness Alegre related a conversation had with Patrocinio at a ball in the Tiro al Blanco in the early part of the year 1925. As far as we can see, Patrocinio said nothing which could be construed as consent to her husband’s misconduct; in fact, as said conversation occurred shortly before the execution of Exhibit B, it does not indicate any acquiescence on the part of Patrocinio with the conduct of her husband. Quite the contrary.

We can find nothing in the record which can be construed as pardon or condonation. It is true that the offended party has to a considerable extent been patient with her husband’s shortcomings, but that seems to have been due to his promises of improvement; nowhere does it appear that she has consented to her husband’s immorality or that she has acquiesced in his relations with his concubine.

The appealed judgment is affirmed with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm and Johns, JJ., concur.

VILLAMOR, J.:


I reserve my vote.

Endnotes:



1. 53 Phil., 965.




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