Case Digest (G.R. No. 264179)
Facts:
Ariel Cadayday Singgit and Genivieve Mayondo But-ay v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 264179, February 27, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Ariel Cadayday Singgit (Ariel) and Genivieve Mayondo But-ay (Genivieve) were indicted by information dated November 19, 2013 for concubinage (Art. 334, Revised Penal Code). They pleaded not guilty at arraignment and went to trial before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Talisay City, Cebu, Criminal Case No. 14394.
The prosecution presented testimony of the private complainant, Consanita R. Singgit (Ariel’s wife), and neighbors who related that Ariel introduced Genivieve as his new wife, that the two lived together at times, and that Ariel and Genivieve had a child together. Genivieve admitted before the barangay that she had an illicit affair with Ariel; in court she testified that Ariel courted her under another name, promised marriage, and lived with her in Mindanao and Negros during the pregnancy and birth.
The MTCC (Decision dated December 5, 2017) found both accused guilty of concubinage, sentencing Ariel to prision correccional (six months and one day to four years and two months) and Genivieve to destierro. The accused appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Talisay City. In its Decision dated May 20, 2019 the RTC affirmed the MTCC, rejecting the argument that the Information’s use of the term “private dwelling” (rather than “conjugal dwelling”) rendered the charge deficient; the RTC denied reconsideration on July 8, 2019.
Ariel and Genivieve then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 13876). In its Decision dated May 18, 2021 the Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that “private dwelling” was encompassed by the statutory mode “cohabiting… in any other place,” and that the prosecution proved cohabitation and that Genivieve knew Ariel was married; the CA denied reconsideration in its June 21, 2022 Resolution.
The petitioners s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Ariel and Genivieve for concubinage....(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)