GR L 22159; (July, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22159 July 31, 1968
EMILIANO CASTRO, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Emiliano Castro y Villanueva (appellant) was convicted of concubinage upon a complaint filed by his wife, Flordeliza T. Castro. The Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. His co-defendant, Lolita Flojo y Balicanta, was not tried as she had not been apprehended. The Court of Appeals found that appellant, legally married to the complainant since February 9, 1952 (though separated since 1954), cohabited and had sexual intercourse with his co-defendant from about 1956 to 1959. They lived together in his house at 1321-A P. Guevara St., Manila, which was his former matrimonial domicile, openly as husband and wife. This was established by the testimony of the complainant and her sister, corroborated by the co-defendant’s birth certificate (Exh. B) and SSS form (Exh. E). The birth certificate, signed by Lolita Flojo as “Lolita Flojo Castro,” declared the birth of her “legitimate” son, Alejandro Flojo Castro, fathered by appellant, and listed appellant’s address as her own. The SSS form used the same name and address, described appellant as her “husband,” and named him as her beneficiary. Appellant denied the illicit relations, but his testimony was outweighed by the prosecution’s evidence.
ISSUE
The primary issue raised by the appellant is whether there was condonation or pardon by his wife for the act of concubinage, which is a factual issue.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive in a petition for review on certiorari. The appellant’s claim of condonation or pardon was not sustained by the lower courts, and this conclusion constitutes a factual finding not reviewable by the Supreme Court. Independently, the evidence showed that the complainant had never consented to, pardoned, or condoned the illicit relations. Her letters in 1957 referred to Lolita Flojo as appellant’s mistress, and her behavior from 1958 onward, including filing a civil action for legal separation in 1959 based on the same illicit relations, demonstrated her lack of pardon. Therefore, the conviction for concubinage was upheld.