G.R. No. L-11549, October 12, 1916
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA and AURORA ARROYO, defendants. JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, appellant.

FACTS:
On October 25, 1915, Luisa Goitia de la Camara filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila charging her husband, Jose Campos Rueda, and Aurora Arroyo with the crime of “amancebamiento” or concubinage. The complaint alleged that from June 1, 1915, until the filing of the complaint, Jose Campos Rueda, while lawfully married to the complainant, willfully and with scandal (“con escandalo”) maintained a concubine, Aurora Arroyo, outside the conjugal home. After trial, the court acquitted Aurora Arroyo, finding she was unaware that Campos Rueda was married. However, it convicted Jose Campos Rueda of concubinage and sentenced him to prision correccional. Campos Rueda appealed, assigning errors primarily contesting the factual findings and the court’s conclusion that his acts were committed under scandalous circumstances.

ISSUE:
Whether the alleged illicit relations between the appellant, Jose Campos Rueda, and his co-accused, Aurora Arroyo, were committed “con escandalo” (under scandalous circumstances) as required for the crime of concubinage under Article 437 of the Penal Code.

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the lower court and ordered the complaint dismissed and the appellant discharged. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged acts were committed “con escandalo.”

The Court examined the evidence, which showed that the appellant visited the house of Aurora Arroyo (where she lived with her mother and sisters), was seen riding in a carriage with her, and went with her to a theater. However, the witnesses who testified to these facts were not neighbors or residents of the vicinity where Arroyo lived but were persons employed to spy on the appellant. Notably, none of the actual neighbors called to testify observed any conduct that aroused suspicion or suggested immoral relations. The Court emphasized that if the acts had truly been scandalous and public, it would have been unnecessary to rely on hired spies; neighbors in the community would have naturally witnessed and testified to such conduct. Following precedent (United States vs. Casipong and Hongoy, 20 Phil. Rep., 178) and Spanish Supreme Court decisions, the Court ruled that the acts lacked the necessary publicity and notoriety to cause scandal or set a bad example in the community. Since the commission of the crime of concubinage under Article 437 requires that the illicit relations occur “con escandalo,” and this element was not proven, the conviction could not stand. The Court deemed it unnecessary to address the appellant’s other assignments of error.