People v. Francisco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Patrocinio David de Francisco filed a complaint accusing her husband, Agapito Francisco, and Josefina Mantelo of concubinage. The complainant and Agapito Francisco were married on February 1, 1910. In 1922, the wife discovered her husband's illicit relations with Josefina Mantelo, with whom he had two children. The husband confessed and proposed to pay P200 monthly for the children, which the wife agreed to, continuing to live with him until 1925 when they separated via a written agreement. This agreement acknowledged the husband's intimate relations with Josefina Mantelo and the birth of three children from these relations. Another child was born on February 24, 1927, leading to the filing of the present action on August 26, 1927. Procedural History: The trial court found the defendants guilty of concubinage and sentenced Agapito Francisco to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional, and Josefina Mantelo to two years, four months, and one day of banishment. The defendants appealed. The Petition: The defendants appealed the decision of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime of concubinage, as defined under Article 437 of the Penal Code, can still be extinguished by condonation by the offended party. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to receive evidence of condonation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ordered that the case be remanded to the court below for the reception of evidence on the issue of whether the offended party had condoned the crime of concubinage.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether concubinage can be extinguished by condonation: The Court noted that prior to Act No. 1773, both adultery and concubinage were considered private crimes extinguishable by condonation. While Act No. 1773 converted adultery and other private crimes into public crimes, concubinage was apparently overlooked in this regard. Therefore, following the ruling in United States vs. Rivera and Vitug, concubinage may still be extinguished by condonation. The Court emphasized that the nature of the crime, whether public or private, is crucial in determining the applicability of condonation as a mode of extinction. On whether the trial court erred in refusing to receive evidence of condonation: The Court held that the trial judge erred in refusing to receive evidence of condonation. The judge was under the impression that concubinage, like adultery, had become a public crime and thus not subject to condonation. However, based on the previous ruling in United States vs. Rivera and Vitug, the crime of concubinage retains its private nature in this respect. Consequently, the defendants should have been allowed to present evidence to prove that the offended party had condoned the offense committed by her husband. The refusal to admit such evidence was a reversible error, necessitating further proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The crime of concubinage, despite amendments to related laws, may still be extinguished by condonation by the offended party, and evidence of such condonation must be received by the trial court.