G.R. No. 29531 , December 29, 1928
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGAPITO FRANCISCO and JOSEFINA MANTELO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Patrocinio David de Francisco, the legal wife of Agapito Francisco, filed a complaint for concubinage against her husband and Josefina Mantelo. She alleged that from around August 25, 1927, and for several years prior, Agapito, while married to her, cohabited and had sexual intercourse with Josefina, living together as husband and wife with public scandal. The evidence showed that the illicit relationship had existed since at least 1921, resulting in the birth of several children. In 1922, the wife discovered the relationship and threatened separation. Agapito confessed and proposed to pay support for the children if allowed to continue the payments, to which the wife agreed. They continued living together until 1925, when they formally separated through a written agreement that acknowledged the existence of the children from the illicit relationship but reserved their legal rights. The relationship between Agapito and Josefina continued, and another child was born in February 1927, prompting the criminal complaint in August 1927. The trial court convicted both defendants. During the trial, the defense attempted to present evidence that the wife had condoned the offense, but the trial judge, believing concubinage was a public crime (like adultery after Act No. 1773 ), refused to admit such evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of condonation by the offended spouse in a prosecution for concubinage.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred. Following the precedent in *United States vs. Rivera and Vitug* (28 Phil., 13), the crime of concubinage under Article 437 of the Penal Code remained a private crime that could be extinguished by condonation by the offended party, unlike adultery which had been made a public crime by Act No. 1773 . The trial court’s refusal to receive evidence on condonation was therefore reversible error. The case was remanded to the trial court for the reception of evidence on whether the offended wife had condoned the crime. No costs were awarded.