G.R. No. 9540 - People vs Rivera

Juan Rivera, the defendant, was legally married to Anselma Garcia on June 3, 1893, in Lubao, Pampanga, and the couple had several children, with only Gregorio Rivera surviving.
Despite the marital bond, Rivera separated from Anselma in 1902 and commenced a marital relation with Rafaela Vitug, who was also separated from her husband, Carlos Punsalan.

From 1902 onwards, Rivera and Vitug lived together as husband and wife, residing in various locations including Lubao, Pampanga.
Their public co-habitation was evident as they were frequently seen together in public places such as streets, churches, and homes, engaging in overt and scandalous acts of concubinage.
Incidents of public display included nights spent together in the same bed in different residences (e.g., in Florida Blanca and Lubao) as well as social occasions in Manila.

On June 13, 1912, Anselma Garcia, the injured spouse, initially filed a complaint for adultery before the justice of the peace court of Lubao, charging Rivera and Vitug with engaging in marital relations with great scandal.
Shortly thereafter, on June 17, 1912, Anselma voluntarily withdrew her complaint stating she could not rely on the evidence and lacked interest in prosecution, which led to the final dismissal of the case by the justice of the peace.
On June 18, 1912, Rivera and Anselma executed a document—ratified before a notary public and witnessed—declaring their separation based on incompatible habits, and that their only child, Gregorio, should remain under Anselma’s care, while renouncing any future claims for damages arising from their marriage.

Despite the previous withdrawal and the de facto consent indicated by her silence over ten years, Anselma Garcia again filed a complaint on January 24, 1913, charging Rivera and Vitug with the crime of concubinage with public scandal.
The crime charged falls under Article 437 of the Penal Code, which punishes the husband with prision correccional for keeping a concubine, and the concubine with destierro, provided that the offense was committed with scandal.

Evidence demonstrated that Rivera had been in a continuous extramarital relationship with Vitug since 1902, engaging in public acts that were not hidden from the community.
Testimonies and documented evidence showed that Anselma was aware of this co-habitation, having observed them together for more than a decade without taking action until her recent complaints in 1912 and 1913.
The defense argued that Anselma’s delayed complaints might have been induced by political circumstances surrounding Rivera’s election as municipal president, attempting to explain her sudden change in attitude after an extended period of tacit approval.

Whether the long period of silence by Anselma Garcia in the face of Rivera’s extramarital cohabitation with Vitug constitutes her tacit consent to the alleged concubinage with scandal.
Whether the subsequent filing and withdrawal of the adultery complaint, followed by the executed separation agreement, bar the possibility of prosecuting Rivera and Vitug under Article 437 of the Penal Code.
The admissibility of the allegations regarding inducement by political opponents to explain the timing of Anselma’s complaints, and whether such inducement affects the validity of her initial consent by inaction.