FACTS : Ariel Cadayday Singgit and Genivieve But-ay were charged with concubinage for allegedly living together as husband and wife despite Ariel's existing marriage to Consanita Rubio Singgit. The prosecution established that Ariel and Consanita were legally married with five children, but after Consanita left their conjugal home due to marital problems, Ariel openly cohabited with Genivieve, introduced her to neighbors as his new wife, and fathered a child with her. Consanita personally caught the two together in their residence, while neighbors and other witnesses confirmed that they lived together as spouses. Genivieve also admitted during barangay proceedings that she had an affair with Ariel.
For their defense, Ariel claimed that Consanita had abandoned him in 2008 and that he entered into a relationship with Genivieve only afterward. He alleged that he concealed his marital status from Genivieve and that they lived together in Mindanao and Negros after she became pregnant. Genivieve likewise asserted that Ariel used a different name, promised to marry her, and that she only discovered he was already married after being summoned before the barangay. Nevertheless, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found both accused guilty of concubinage, sentencing Ariel to imprisonment and Genivieve to destierro.
On appeal, Ariel and Genivieve argued that the Information was fatally defective because it alleged that they cohabited in a "private dwelling" instead of the "conjugal dwelling" required under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The RTC rejected this argument, ruling that the term "private dwelling" sufficiently encompasses a conjugal dwelling. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the wording was immaterial because the Information likewise alleged that the accused cohabited as husband and wife, which falls under the RPC's mode of committing concubinage by cohabiting "in any other place." The CA further found that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused openly lived together as spouses, with Genivieve's own admission confirming their cohabitation, and thus sustained their conviction.
ISSUE : WON CA erred in affirming the conviction of Ariel and Genivieve for the crime of concubinage
HELD : The Supreme Court held that the Information sufficiently charged Ariel Singgit and Genivieve But-ay with concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) despite referring to their cohabitation in a "private dwelling" instead of a "conjugal dwelling." The Court explained that the Information clearly alleged all the essential elements of the offense, particularly that Ariel, while legally married, cohabited with Genivieve as husband and wife, and that Genivieve knew of his marital status. Since the charge was based on the third mode of committing concubinage—cohabiting with the paramour in any other place—the specific description of the dwelling was immaterial.
The Court further found that the prosecution proved the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Testimonial evidence established that Ariel openly introduced Genivieve as his wife, they lived together for an extended period, and had a child together. Genivieve herself admitted that they lived together while awaiting the birth of their child. The Court accorded great respect to the factual findings of the MTCC, as affirmed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals, holding that these findings were fully supported by the evidence and therefore binding. Consequently, the convictions of both accused were sustained.
Applying Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified only Ariel's penalty. It imposed upon him an indeterminate sentence of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) months of imprisonment, as maximum, while affirming the penalty of destierro imposed upon Genivieve. Accordingly, the petition was denied, and the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution were affirmed with modification as to Ariel's sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment