Maulit v. Samonte
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Fernando Maulit was married to Maxima Agcaoili in 1919. In 1928, Maulit abandoned his wife and cohabited with another woman, with whom he had a child. His wife subsequently sued him and the other woman for concubinage. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte found Maulit guilty of concubinage and sentenced him to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of prison correccional. This sentence was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Before serving his sentence, Maulit's wife executed an affidavit pardoning him. Despite this pardon, Maulit was imprisoned. His wife then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance, which was granted. The presiding judge ordered Maulit's release, holding that concubinage was still a private offense extinguishable by condonation. The provincial fiscal appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The appeal centers on the interpretation of Act No. 1773, which classified certain crimes, including adultery, as public crimes no longer extinguishable by condonation or pardon. The appellant argued that concubinage, being similar to adultery, should also be considered a public crime. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, noting that concubinage was not explicitly mentioned in Act No. 1773 and that the Penal Code treated it as a lesser offense than adultery. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that concubinage remained a private offense extinguishable by condonation.
Issue(s)
Whether concubinage, not being explicitly enumerated in Act No. 1773, is a public crime that cannot be extinguished by condonation or pardon. Whether the pardon granted by Maxima Agcaoili to her husband Fernando Maulit extinguishes his criminal liability for concubinage.
Ruling
The judgment of the court below granting the writ of habeas corpus and ordering the release of Fernando Maulit is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether concubinage is a public crime under Act No. 1773: The Court held that Act No. 1773 enumerates specific crimes (adultery, seduction, abduction, rape, calumny, and insults) as public crimes whose criminal liability is not extinguished by condonation or pardon. Concubinage is not included in this enumeration. While concubinage and adultery are similar in nature, the Penal Code itself distinguishes them by prescribing separate penalties, indicating that concubinage was considered a lesser offense. Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision in Act No. 1773 or any other law classifying concubinage as a public crime, it must be treated as a private offense. On whether the pardon extinguishes the criminal liability: Since concubinage is considered a private offense and not a public crime under Act No. 1773, the general provisions of the Penal Code regarding private offenses apply. Article 435 of the Penal Code allows for the remission of penalties in cases of private offenses. The affidavit executed by Maxima Agcaoili clearly grants full pardon to her husband, Fernando Maulit, for the crime of concubinage. This pardon, being voluntarily given and without undue influence, effectively extinguishes his criminal liability for the offense. The Court emphasized that criminal statutes must be construed in favor of the accused, and there is no legal basis to deny the effect of the pardon in this case.
Main Doctrine
Concubinage, not being enumerated in Act No. 1773, remains a private offense under the Penal Code and can be extinguished by condonation or pardon by the offended party.