G.R. No. 32663, December 15, 1930
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. AGAPITO FRANCISCO and JOSEFINA MANTELO

FACTS

Patrocinio David, the lawful wife of Agapito Francisco since 1910, accused her husband and Josefina Mantelo of concubinage. She discovered her husband’s illicit relationship with Mantelo in 1922, resulting in the birth of several children. Initially, Patrocinio agreed to continue the marriage upon her husband’s promise to reform and provide support for the children, but they formally separated in 1925 through a written agreement that acknowledged the husband’s relationship and the existence of the children. The agreement stipulated it would remain in effect as long as both parties complied, but it did not constitute a waiver of their legal rights. The illicit relations persisted, leading to the birth of another child in 1927, prompting Patrocinio to file the complaint. The trial court convicted both defendants. On appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the trial court to receive evidence on whether Patrocinio had condoned the offense, as concubinage was then considered a private crime subject to pardon by the offended party.

ISSUE

Whether the offended wife, Patrocinio David, condoned the crime of concubinage committed by her husband, Agapito Francisco, thereby extinguishing criminal liability.

RULING

No, the offended wife did not condone the crime. The Supreme Court examined the evidence presented by the defense, including witness testimonies, and found nothing to indicate that Patrocinio had pardoned her husband’s misconduct or consented to his continued illicit relations with Josefina Mantelo. Her patience and earlier forbearance were based on her husband’s promises to reform, not on acquiescence to the concubinage. The 1925 separation agreement explicitly reserved her legal rights and did not constitute condonation. Therefore, the crime of concubinage was not extinguished. The appealed judgment convicting the defendants was affirmed.