G.R. No. 34484 - Maulit vs. Samonte

Fernando Maulit was legally married to Maxima Agcaoili since 1919.
During the marriage, the couple had five children, evidencing a prolonged conjugal relationship.

In 1928, Fernando Maulit abandoned his legitimate wife and took up residence with a concubine, Sabina Tabatiag.
While living with his concubine, he fathered a child, further solidifying his act of concubinage.

Maxima Agcaoili, aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity, instituted a criminal prosecution against him for concubinage (locally termed “amancebamiento”).
The prosecution was filed before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte.
Maulit was convicted and sentenced to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of prision correctional.
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, as seen in People vs. Maulit and Tabanag, G.R. No. 32682, promulgated on September 2, 1930.

Before serving his sentence, Maulit’s wife executed an affidavit on October 9, 1930, in Dingras, Ilocos Norte.

In the affidavit, Maxima Agcaoili recounted the history of their marriage and the misdeeds committed by her husband.
She acknowledged that her husband had repented and resumed his duties as a responsible husband and father.
Voluntarily and without coercion, she granted him a full pardon and requested that the pardon be extended by all concerned authorities.

The pardon was intended to condone the crime of concubinage, thereby extinguishing his criminal liability.

Despite the wife’s pardon, Maulit was still imprisoned based on the interpretation of Act No. 1773, which held that concubinage was not a private offense subject to condonation.
Consequently, the wife filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance, aiming for the release of her husband and the concubine.
Presiding Judge Fermin Mariano ruled in favor of the petition, ordering their release.
The provincial fiscal, representing the provincial governor, appealed this decision to the higher court.

Act No. 1773 enumerates several crimes (adultery, seduction, abduction, rape, calumny, and insults) as public crimes that are not subject to condonation by the aggrieved party.
The contention arose as to whether concubinage should be analogized to adultery, thereby rendering it a public crime.
The prosecution argued that due to the close similarity between adultery and concubinage, the legislature must have intended to include concubinage within the ambit of public crimes.
However, the Penal Code, particularly articles 433 and 437, treats concubinage as a lesser offense compared to adultery, with distinct penalties.

Whether the crime of concubinage committed by Fernando Maulit qualifies as a public crime that cannot be extinguished by condonation or pardon under Act No. 1773.

Whether the voluntary pardon and condonation executed by Maulit’s wife are sufficient to extinguish his criminal liability for concubinage, given the statutory provisions.

How the legislative intent underlying Act No. 1773 and the Penal Code should be interpreted, specifically regarding the distinction between concubinage and adultery.

Whether the judicial construction of the statutory provisions should be so interpreted as to favor the accused in criminal matters when ambiguity exists.