Title
Busuego vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 196842
Decision Date
Oct 9, 2013
A wife accused her husband of concubinage, abuse, and threats; the Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause, dismissing claims of condonation and procedural errors.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 196842)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Petitioner Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego (Alfredo) was married to respondent Rosa S. Busuego (Rosa) on July 12, 1975, with two sons, Alfred and Robert.
    • Alfredo was Chief of Hospital of the Davao Regional Hospital in Tagum City.
    • Rosa filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman accusing Alfredo of:
      • Concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code,
      • Violation of RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act), and
      • Grave Threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code.
  • Marital Deterioration and Alleged Acts of Concubinage
    • Marital problems began around 1983 when Rosa found photographs and love letters from other women addressed to Alfredo.
    • Alfredo generally was absent from his family, spending little time at home and often late at night or weekends away.
    • Rosa planned to work in the US as a nurse in 1985, opposed by Alfredo, who threatened her with a gun.
    • Rosa left for the US, was later joined by their children; Alfredo did not provide financial support; Rosa supported the family financially.
    • In 1997, Rosa discovered Emy Sia (Sia) living in the conjugal home; Alfredo claimed Sia was a nurse in a dire situation.
    • Later, Rosa learned of Alfredo's ongoing extra-marital affairs through their son Robert, including Sia and another mistress, Julie de Leon (de Leon).
    • Househelpers corroborated Rosa's allegations, stating that Sia and de Leon stayed overnight in the conjugal bedroom.
    • Alfredo denied allegations, claiming alleged mistresses were not cohabiting or sexually involved with him and cited work demands and frequent absences from home.
  • Procedural History
    • Ombudsman conducted preliminary investigation; Rosa was initially required to implead the alleged mistresses per Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
    • Sia and de Leon were impleaded as party-respondents but did not file counter-affidavits; Sia’s summons was returned unclaimed.
    • Alfredo filed motions to dismiss and referral to the City Prosecutor due to procedural and jurisdictional issues.
    • Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Alfredo and Sia for Concubinage and ordered the filing of Information.
    • Charges against Alfredo for Concubinage involving de Leon, Grave Threats, and violations of RA 9262 were dismissed for lack of merit.
    • Alfredo moved for reconsideration, denied by Ombudsman for being filed out of time and lack of merit.
    • Alfredo petitioned the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the Ombudsman’s resolution.

Issues:

  • Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in:
    • Including Sia and de Leon as party-respondents without Alfredo's consent.
    • Exercising jurisdiction and not referring the complaint to the Department of Justice (DOJ) or City Prosecutor.
    • Overlooking Rosa’s alleged condonation of Alfredo’s concubinage.
    • Disregarding the recantation affidavit of househelper Liza S. Diambangan.
    • Finding probable cause to indict Alfredo and Sia for concubinage.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.