Here’s a digest of the PH case:

G.R. No. L-3228
The United States and Maria Aureus, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. Wenceslao Mercado and Vicenta Rey, defendants-appellants.
August 3, 1909

FACTS:
The defendants, Wenceslao Mercado and Vicenta Rey, were charged with concubinage under Article 437 of the Penal Code. The complaint alleged that for nearly two years, they lived together in concubinage on property owned by plaintiff Maria Aureus and her husband (Wenceslao Mercado), causing public scandal and leading Maria Aureus to return to her parents’ home.

The lower court found the defendants guilty, imposing 8 months of prision correccional on Mercado and 6 months and 1 day of banishment on Rey, plus half of the costs for each, with subsidiary imprisonment/banishment in case of insolvency. The court found no aggravating circumstances but applied Article 11 of the Penal Code as an extenuating circumstance.

The Supreme Court’s examination of the record established:
1. Maria Aureus and Wenceslao Mercado were married on February 3, 1883, and their marriage was never annulled.
2. Maria Aureus and Wenceslao Mercado had separated and were living apart before the alleged crime.
3. Vicenta Rey and her husband were employed by Mercado and Rey continued in his employment until her husband’s death.
4. Vicenta Rey continued to live in Mercado’s house after his separation from his wife and after her husband’s death.
5. Evidence showed, beyond a doubt, that the defendants committed the acts described in the complaint (concubinage).

The defendants appealed, assigning error in being declared guilty of adultery (though charged with concubinage).

ISSUE:
1. Were the defendants guilty of the crime of concubinage under Article 437 of the Penal Code?
2. Was the application of Article 11 of the Penal Code as an extenuating circumstance proper for the crime of concubinage?
3. Can subsidiary imprisonment or banishment be imposed for the non-payment of costs owed to the State?

RULING:
1. Yes, the defendants were found guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding of guilt, stating that the evidence showed “beyond peradventure of doubt” that the defendants committed the acts of concubinage as described in the complaint.
2. No, Article 11 was improperly applied. The Supreme Court held that it was not the intention of the Legislature for the provisions of Article 11 (which generally refers to illiteracy, lack of education, or age) to be extended as an extenuating circumstance for crimes of the character with which the defendants were charged. Therefore, since there were neither aggravating nor extenuating circumstances, the penalty should be applied in its medium degree.
3. No, subsidiary imprisonment/banishment cannot be imposed for costs to the State. The Court ruled that subsidiary imprisonment or banishment cannot be enforced for costs in favor of the State. Referring to Articles 49, 50, and 51 of the Penal Code, the Court clarified that costs incurred by the State are not among the pecuniary liabilities for which a defendant may be required to suffer subsidiary imprisonment. Subsidiary imprisonment may only be imposed for costs of a private accuser, which was not established in this case.

Modified Sentence:
Wenceslao Mercado: Sentenced to two years of prision correccional and to pay one-half of the costs of both instances.
Vicenta Rey: Sentenced to banishment from the barrio of Manangle and the surrounding territory within a radius of 25 kilometers for a period of two years, four months, and one day, and to pay one-half of the costs in both instances.

The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment or banishment for costs was explicitly removed from the sentence.