G.R. No. 264179 . February 27, 2023
Ariel Cadayday Singgit and Genivieve Mayondo But-ay, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Ariel Cadayday Singgit (Ariel) and Genivieve Mayondo But-ay (Genivieve) were charged with concubinage under an Information dated November 19, 2013. The prosecution alleged that sometime in 2010 and periods prior and subsequent, in Talisay City, Cebu, Ariel, who was lawfully married to Consanita Rubio Singgit (private complainant), cohabited and lived together with Genivieve, a woman not his wife, as husband and wife in a private dwelling, begetting a child named Jael Rhian Singgit, with Genivieve knowing fully well that Ariel was married.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of private complainant, Gemma Samlero, and Sandra Bacalso. Private complainant testified that she and Ariel were legally married with five children. In April 2008, she discovered Ariel had a mistress, and due to a heart problem, she left their conjugal home. In 2010, Ariel brought Genivieve to live in their conjugal dwelling, and they later had a child. In January 2011, private complainant, with a friend and a barangay tanod, found Ariel naked in a room with Genivieve. In August 2013, Genivieve admitted the illicit affair before the Barangay Captain. Gemma Samlero testified that in September 2010, she saw Ariel and Genivieve together at the conjugal house, and a neighbor referred to Genivieve as Ariel’s “new wife.” Sandra Bacalso testified that she knew Genivieve as Ariel’s “new wife” since 2009 and would see her at Ariel’s house.
The defense presented countervailing evidence. Ariel testified that marital discord began in 2007 over financial issues. In April 2008, after private complainant left, he discovered damaged property in their home. Attempts at reconciliation failed, with private complainant threatening him with a knife. He claimed he lived at the Bible Baptist Church and only visited the Lagtang house, which was occupied by another couple. He stated he met Genivieve in 2010 through a text mate introduction, did not inform her of his marriage, and they had a child. Genivieve learned of his marriage only when summoned to the barangay. Genivieve testified she was courted by “Rey” (Ariel), who did not disclose his marriage, and she lost her virginity to him, resulting in pregnancy. She discovered his real name from a neighbor and was later brought to Mindanao to give birth.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found both petitioners guilty of concubinage. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) likewise affirmed the conviction, holding that all elements of concubinage were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioners Ariel Singgit and Genivieve But-ay for the crime of concubinage.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMED the CA Decision with MODIFICATION.
The Court held that all elements of concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code were established: (1) the offended party (private complainant) is legally married to the accused husband (Ariel); (2) the marriage is valid and subsisting at the time of the commission of the crime; (3) the accused husband committed any of the following acts: (a) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, (b) having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife, or (c) cohabiting with such woman in any other place; and (4) the woman (Genivieve) knew the man to be married.
The evidence proved that Ariel and private complainant were legally married and the marriage was subsisting. The act of cohabitation was established through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who saw Genivieve living with Ariel in the conjugal dwelling in Lagtang, Talisay City, and being introduced as his “new wife.” The birth of a child was corroborative evidence of their sexual relations. Genivieve’s knowledge of Ariel’s marriage was inferred from the circumstances, including her admission before the barangay captain and the fact that she and Ariel concealed her pregnancy and moved to Mindanao for the birth, indicating awareness of the illicit nature of their relationship.
The Court modified the penalties imposed. For Ariel, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty is arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The minimum indeterminate term was taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto mayor in its medium to maximum periods. Ariel was sentenced to suffer arresto mayor or imprisonment for two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to six (6) months, as maximum. For Genivieve, the proper penalty is destierro.