People v. Francisco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Patrocinio David filed a complaint for concubinage against her husband, Agapito Francisco, and Josefina Mantelo, seeking a divorce. The couple had been married since February 1, 1910. In December 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's maintenance if his wife allowed him to continue the relationship. The wife accepted this proposition and continued to live with her husband until 1925, when they separated under a written agreement. This agreement acknowledged the husband's intimate relations with Josefina Mantelo and the birth of three children from these relations. The agreement stipulated that it would subsist as long as both parties complied with its terms, but did not signify a renunciation of legal rights. Another child was born to Agapito Francisco and Josefina Mantelo on February 24, 1927, after which the action was instituted. Procedural History: The trial court found the defendants guilty of concubinage and imposed sentences. The court, under the impression that concubinage was a public crime, refused to admit evidence of condonation. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in refusing such evidence and remanded the case for a new trial to accept evidence of condonation. The Petition: The defendants appealed their conviction, arguing that the offended party had condoned the crime.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime of concubinage is a public crime or a private offense subject to condonation. Whether the offended party, Patrocinio David, condoned the illicit relations of her husband, Agapito Francisco, with Josefina Mantelo.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of condonation. However, after a new trial where such evidence was presented, the Court found no sufficient proof of condonation and thus affirmed the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of concubinage and condonation: The Court reiterated its ruling in United States vs. Rivera and Vitug that concubinage, as defined by Article 437 of the Penal Code, is a private offense and not a public crime. Unlike adultery, which was converted into a public crime by Act No. 1773, concubinage was seemingly overlooked and remained subject to condonation by the offended party. Therefore, the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence tending to prove condonation. On the evidence of condonation: The Court meticulously reviewed the testimonies presented by the defense to establish condonation. The testimony of Natividad Sabinay was deemed unreliable. Iñigo Regalado's testimony about Patrocinio inquiring about Agapito's whereabouts did not directly prove condonation. The testimonies of Carlos Preysler and Luis Elzingre Dumas indicated separation but not necessarily forgiveness. Juan B. Alegre's account of a conversation shortly before the separation agreement did not suggest acquiescence. The Court concluded that while Patrocinio David showed patience, it was due to her husband's promises of improvement, not consent or acquiescence to his immorality. Therefore, no sufficient evidence of pardon or condonation was found in the record.
Main Doctrine
The crime of concubinage, as defined under Article 437 of the Penal Code, was considered a private offense subject to condonation by the offended party, and evidence of such condonation should have been admitted by the trial court.