GR 47756; (June, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47756 ; June 10, 1941
LUIS OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Luis Ocampo was charged with concubinage, together with Igmedia Refe, in the Court of First Instance of Albay. He was found guilty and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The illicit relations began in 1937. In September of that year, Ocampo and Refe went to Naga, where they lived together as husband and wife in the same house and were often seen together at shows and dances. In October 1937, they went to Tiwi, Albay, for thermal baths on two occasions, staying for three days and four days, respectively. During their stays in Tiwi, they lived together as husband and wife in the house of Alfonsa Toledo, occupying one room where they slept alone.
ISSUE
Whether, based on the facts presented, petitioner Luis Ocampo may properly be held guilty of concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically for “cohabiting with such woman in any other place.”
RULING
Yes, the petitioner is guilty of concubinage. Under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, concubinage can be committed by “cohabiting with such woman in any other place.” The term “cohabit” means to dwell together in the manner of husband and wife for some period of time, as distinguished from occasional, transient meetings for unlawful intercourse. Whether an association constitutes cohabitation is a question of fact for the court’s appreciation. In this case, the petitioner’s conduct was not limited to isolated encounters. He and his co-accused lived together as husband and wife in Naga and again in Tiwi for a total of seven days, sleeping together alone in one room. This association is sufficient to constitute cohabitation within the meaning of the law, even without proof of actual sexual intercourse. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s claim that a letter from the complainant constituted consent or condonation under Article 344, as the trial court found it did not, a factual finding not reversed by the Court of Appeals and thus not reviewable. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.