Singgit vs. People of the Philippines

An Information for concubinage that alleges cohabitation in a "private dwelling" sufficiently charges the crime under the third mode of Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code ("cohabiting with her in any other place"), because a private dwelling is necessarily included within the phrase "any other place," and the distinction between "private" and "conjugal" dwelling is immaterial where the Information does not limit the charge to the first mode (keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling).

Ariel Cadayday Singgit and Consanita Rubio Singgit were lawfully married with five children. In April 2008, Consanita discovered her husband's infidelity and left their conjugal home in Lagtang, Talisay City, Cebu, moving to her parents' house in Negros. Subsequently, Ariel entered into a relationship with Genivieve Mayondo But-ay, who was 19 years old at the time. The relationship resulted in the birth of a child. On November 19, 2013, both were charged with concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that Ariel, being lawfully married to Consanita, cohabited with Genivieve in a "private dwelling," living as husband and wife and begetting a child, with Genivieve knowing Ariel was married.

Marriage and Separation:

Private complainant Consanita Rubio Singgit and petitioner Ariel Cadayday Singgit were legally married and had five children. In April 2008, Consanita discovered Ariel's infidelity. Due to a heart condition, she left their conjugal home at Sitio Fatima, Lagtang, Talisay City, Cebu and moved to her parents' house in Negros. Ariel claimed that Consanita left him because he had no money, that she destroyed his belongings, and that she later threatened him with a knife when he attempted reconciliation. After Consanita's departure, Ariel felt "alone and lonely."

Ariel's Relationship with Genivieve:

In 2010, Ariel obtained Genivieve Mayondo But-ay's phone number through his niece for a text-mate arrangement. At that time, Genivieve was 19 years old. They met in person and formed a romantic relationship. Ariel did not disclose to Genivieve that he was married. He brought her to a motel on one occasion and promised to marry her. Five months later, Genivieve became pregnant. Upon learning of the pregnancy, Ariel sent Genivieve to her hometown in Tanjay City, Negros, while he remained in Cebu.

Cohabitation in Mindanao:

When Genivieve was about to give birth, she asked Ariel to be present. Ariel instructed her to return to Cebu, and upon her arrival, they immediately traveled to Lianga, Mindanao — where Genivieve's elder brother resided. Ariel admitted he chose Mindanao because he was afraid Genivieve would discover he was married. They stayed together in Mindanao for approximately four months, during which Genivieve gave birth to their child, Jael Rhian Singgit. After three weeks, Ariel brought Genivieve and the child to her parents' home in Negros, where he promised to marry her the following year. He then returned to Cebu and ceased communication and financial support.

Prosecution Evidence of Cohabitation:

Prosecution witness Sandra Bacalso, a neighbor of the Singgit spouses for ten years, testified that Ariel introduced Genivieve to her as his "new wife" in 2009. She would frequently see Genivieve coming out of Ariel's house. Consanita would occasionally call Sandra to ask if the petitioners were at the house, and Sandra would answer affirmatively. Witness Gemma Samlero, a neighbor of 11 years, testified that in September 2010, she went to Ariel's house and saw him with Genivieve washing plates and cooking. A neighbor informed her that Genivieve was Ariel's "new wife." In January 2011, Consanita returned to the conjugal house with Gemma and a barangay tanod, finding Ariel naked in a room with Genivieve standing beside him. In February 2011, Consanita returned with Gemma and barangay tanods to demand that Ariel vacate the house. On August 13, 2013, Consanita had Genivieve summoned to the Barangay Hall, where Genivieve admitted her illicit affair with Ariel in the presence of the Barangay Captain.

Genivieve's Admissions:

Genivieve herself testified that, after learning she was pregnant, Ariel brought her to Mindanao where she delivered their child. She stated that Ariel would go to her whenever he had time off from work. A neighbor later recognized Ariel from a photo and informed Genivieve that his true name was Ariel, not "Rey" as he had introduced himself.

The Information:

The Information dated November 19, 2013 alleged that Ariel, "being then previously united in lawful marriage with one Consanita Rubio Singgit, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cohabit and lived together with his co-accused Genivieve Mayondo But-ay, a woman who is not his wife, living with her as husband and wife in a private dwelling, begetting out of such cohabitation, a child named Jael Rhian Singgit," with Genivieve knowing Ariel was married.

• Insufficiency of the Information: Petitioners argued that the use of the term "private dwelling" in the Information, instead of "conjugal dwelling," was insufficient to charge the crime of concubinage. Since "private dwelling" is not a term found in the definition of concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, they could not be convicted therefor.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Respondent People of the Philippines, through the prosecution, maintained that the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of concubinage. The use of "private dwelling" rather than "conjugal dwelling" was immaterial because cohabitation in a private dwelling falls within the third mode of committing concubinage — "cohabiting with her in any other place."

• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether the Information charging concubinage that used the term "private dwelling" instead of "conjugal dwelling" sufficiently alleged the crime of concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Sufficiency of the Information: The Information sufficiently charged the crime of concubinage. The use of "private dwelling" instead of "conjugal dwelling" was immaterial because nothing in the Information limited the charge to the first mode of concubinage (keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling). Article 334 provides three modes of committing concubinage: (1) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, (2) having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife, and (3) cohabiting with her in any other place. The allegation of cohabitation "in a private dwelling" falls squarely within the third mode — cohabitation "in any other place" — since a private dwelling is necessarily encompassed by the phrase "any other place." The gravamen of concubinage is the assault on the marital vow and the attack on the family caused by spousal infidelity. On the merits, the prosecution proved cohabitation beyond reasonable doubt through the testimonies of Sandra Bacalso (who testified that Ariel introduced Genivieve as his "new wife"), Gemma Samlero (who saw them together in the house cooking and washing plates), and Consanita Singgit (who found Ariel naked with Genivieve beside him). Genivieve herself admitted she and Ariel lived together in Mindanao for months while awaiting the birth of their child, and that Ariel would come home to her when not working. As for the penalty, the indeterminate sentence for Ariel was improper; the minimum term should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree — arresto mayor in its medium to maximum periods (two months and one day to six months) — applied to the maximum term of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

• Sufficiency of an Information — An Information is sufficient if it states: the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time and place of the offense. What controls is not the title or designation of the offense, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts recited. The acts or omissions must be alleged in such form as enables a person of common understanding to know what offense is charged, allows the accused to prepare a defense, and equips the court to render proper judgment. Every element of the offense must be stated in the Information.

• Conviction Must Be for Offense Charged — An accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. To convict for an offense other than that charged would violate the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. However, an accused may be convicted of a crime necessarily included in the offense charged.

• Elements of Concubinage (Article 334, Revised Penal Code) — The elements are: (1) the man must be married; (2) he committed any of the following modes: (a) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, (b) having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife, or (c) cohabiting with her in any other place; and (3) as regards the woman, she must know him to be married. The gravamen of the crime is the assault on the marital vow and the attack on the family caused by spousal infidelity.

• "Cohabit" Defined — Cohabit means to dwell together, in the manner of husband and wife, for some period of time, as distinguished from occasional, transient interviews for unlawful intercourse. Whether an association for illicit intercourse constitutes an unlawful assumption of the conjugal relation is a question of fact in every case.

• "For complaint or information to be sufficient, it must state the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited." — The Court's restatement of the standard for sufficiency of an Information, quoting People v. Dimaano.

• "The term 'cohabit' means to dwell together, in the manner of husband and wife, for some period of time, as distinguished from occasional, transient interviews for unlawful intercourse. And, whether an association, for illicit intercourse, has been such as to constitute an unlawful assumption of the conjugal relation, is, in every case a question of fact." — The Court's definition of cohabitation, central to the third mode of concubinage, as quoted with approval from the CA's ratiocination.

• People v. Dimaano, 506 Phil. 630 (2005) — Cited as authority on the requirements for a sufficient Information; the Court quoted its enumeration of the essential contents of a valid Information.

• People v. Manalili, 355 Phil. 652 (1998) — Cited for the hornbook doctrine that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information; conviction for an uncharged offense violates the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• Enrile v. People, 766 Phil. 75 (2015) — Cited for the concomitant component that the Information must provide fair notice of the accusations, permit the accused to prepare a defense, ensure prosecution based on presented facts, enable a plea of jeopardy, and inform the court of the facts to determine sufficiency of the charge.

• People v. Ocampo, 72 Phil. 268 (1941) — Cited by the Court of Appeals and quoted with approval for the definition of cohabitation and the factual nature of determining whether an association constitutes an unlawful assumption of the conjugal relation.

• Article 334, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes concubinage. The husband who keeps a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, has sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife, or cohabits with her in any other place, is punished by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The concubine suffers destierro. Applied as the substantive basis for the conviction; the third mode — cohabitation "in any other place" — encompassed the "private dwelling" alleged in the Information.

• Section 11(a), Rule 122, Rules of Court — Provides that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the appellate court's judgment is favorable and applicable to the latter. The Court noted that Genivieve had not properly authorized the petition, but this provision would not benefit her because the petition lacked merit.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied in modifying Ariel's penalty. The maximum indeterminate term is taken from the maximum of the imposable penalty (prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods), while the minimum indeterminate term is taken from the penalty next lower in degree (arresto mayor in its medium to maximum periods, or two months and one day to six months).

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concurred.

N/A — The decision was unanimous.