G.R. No. 264179 - Singgit vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 264179)

Factual Background

The accused-husband, Ariel Cadayday Singgit, was married to Consanita Rubio Singgit and had five children. Consanita alleged that following marital discord beginning in 2008 she left the conjugal home and that Ariel thereafter maintained relations with other women. The Information charged that from about 2010 Ariel cohabited with Genivieve Mayondo But-ay, a woman not his wife, in a private dwelling and that the two begot a child named Jael Rhian Singgit. Witnesses for the prosecution testified to repeated public and domestic association between Ariel and Genivieve, including instances where Ariel introduced Genivieve as his new wife and a barangay confrontation in 2013 where Genivieve allegedly admitted the illicit relationship. Genivieve's own testimony recited courtship under the name “Rey,” pregnancy, travels and periods of residence with Ariel in Mindanao and Negros, and an assertion that she later learned of Ariel’s marriage.

Procedural History

An Information was filed on November 19, 2013, charging the two petitioners with concubinage under Article 334, Revised Penal Code. Both pleaded not guilty and were tried. The MTCC found them guilty by Decision dated December 5, 2017 and sentenced Ariel to imprisonment and Genivieve to destierro. The RTC affirmed that Decision by Decision dated May 20, 2019 and denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by Order dated July 8, 2019. The CA denied the petition for review under Rule 42 in its Decision dated May 18, 2021 and denied reconsideration in its Resolution dated June 21, 2022. The petitioners then sought relief by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court in the Supreme Court, which promulgated judgment on February 27, 2023.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented the testimony of Consanita, neighbors, and acquaintances. Consanita recounted seeing Ariel and Genivieve together, discovering messages and photographs, witnessing Ariel naked in a room with Genivieve nearby, and seeing the couple’s child on a social media page. Neighbors Gemma Samlero and Sandra Bacalso testified that they observed Genivieve performing household tasks at Ariel’s residence, that Ariel introduced Genivieve as his new wife, and that the private complainant had occasioned barangay interventions due to disputes. The prosecution relied on these observations and on Genivieve’s admission at the barangay level to establish cohabitation and the knowledge of Ariel’s marital status.

Defense Evidence

Ariel testified that marital separation began in 2008 and that he did not reside with his wife thereafter; he recounted failed reunification attempts, his continuing contact with his children, and that he met Genivieve as a young woman identified to him by a niece. He stated he did not initially disclose his marriage to Genivieve and described movements between Cebu, Mindanao, and Negros during the period of her pregnancy and the child’s birth. Genivieve testified that she met and had relations with a man she knew as Rey at age nineteen, that she became pregnant, that she was told Rey would marry her, and that she later learned his true name was Ariel; she described periods of residence away from Cebu and a barangay summons where Consanita confronted her.

MTCC Ruling

The MTCC found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of concubinage. The court concluded that Ariel and Genivieve openly cohabited as husband and wife, that Ariel introduced Genivieve as his new wife to neighbors, and that Genivieve knew Ariel was married. The MTCC sentenced Ariel to imprisonment from six months and one day to four years and two months, and imposed destierro on Genivieve.

RTC Ruling

The RTC affirmed the MTCC Decision by way of Decision dated May 20, 2019. The RTC rejected the petitioners’ contention that the Information was defective for alleging cohabitation in a “private dwelling” rather than a “conjugal dwelling.” The RTC reasoned that the term “dwelling” encompasses conjugal dwelling and therefore the allegation was sufficient to charge concubinage under Article 334.

CA Ruling

The CA denied the petition for review and upheld the RTC and MTCC findings in its Decision dated May 18, 2021. The CA held that the use of the phrase “private dwelling” in the Information was inconsequential because the prosecution proved cohabitation under the third mode of Article 334, namely cohabiting “in any other place.” The CA found that the prosecution established cohabitation by evidence and by Genivieve’s own admissions that she and Ariel lived together in Mindanao for months while awaiting the birth of their child.

Issue Presented

Whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of Ariel and Genivieve for the crime of concubinage, particularly given the use of the term “private dwelling” in the Information instead of the term “conjugal dwelling.”

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Court reviewed the sufficiency of the Information under Rule 110, Section 2, Rules of Court, and reiterated controlling jurisprudential standards drawn from People v. Dimaano, People v. Manalili, and Enrile v. People, which require that an Information state the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate time, and the place of the commission so as to enable the accused to prepare a defense. The Court set out the elements of concubinage under Article 334, Revised Penal Code: that the man is married; that he either keeps a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, has sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife, or cohabits with her in any other place; and that the woman knows the man is married. The Court concluded that the Information sufficiently alleged these elements and that the prosecution proved them beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reasoned that the use of “private dwelling” did not confine the charge to the first mode and was subsumed by the third mode of Article 334, cohabitation “in any other place.” The Court adopted the CA’s citation of the meaning of “cohabit” as dwelling together in the manner of husband and wife for some period, referencing People v. Ocampo for the proposition that recurrent dwelling together may constitute cohabitation even without proof of sexual intercourse. The Court found the factual findings of the MTCC, as affirmed by the RTC and CA, supported by the record. The Court noted the finality of CA findings on facts absent a clear lack of evidentiary support, citing Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera. On sentencing, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law,

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 264179)

Parties and Posture

ARIEL CADAYDAY SINGGIT and GENIVIEVE MAYONDO BUT-AY were the petitioners convicted of concubinage by the MTCC, and they appealed to the RTC, then to the Court of Appeals, and finally petitioned the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
People of the Philippines was the respondent prosecuting the crime of concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Supreme Court noted that the instant petition lacked proof that Genivieve authorized counsel to file the petition on her behalf but applied Section 11, Rule 122 to note that an appellate judgment favorable to one of several accused benefits those who did not appeal only when applicable.

Key Facts

Consanita R. Singgit, the private complainant, testified that she and Ariel were legally married and that she discovered her husband having a mistress beginning in 2008.
The private complainant alleged that Ariel brought Genivieve to the conjugal dwelling in 2010 and that the two lived together and had a child whom she later saw on Genivieve's Facebook page.
Witnesses Gemma Samlero and Sandra Bacalso testified that they saw Genivieve living with Ariel, that Ariel introduced Genivieve as his new wife to neighbors, and that the private complainant confronted them at the conjugal home.
Genivieve admitted in a barangay meeting to having an illicit affair with Ariel, and Genivieve herself testified that Ariel visited her when he had time off from work.

Defence Narrative

Ariel testified that his wife left him in 2008, that he lived apart and frequently visited his family in Dumaguete, and that he later met Genivieve through a text relationship while separated from his wife.
Ariel maintained that he did not tell Genivieve he was married and that they cohabited in various places because they sought privacy and because Genivieve was pregnant.
Genivieve testified that she knew the accused as "Rey" and that Ariel promised to marry her after she became pregnant but later ceased communication and financial support.

Procedural History

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Talisay City convicted both accused on December 5, 2017, sentencing Ariel to imprisonment and Genivieve to destierro.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, affirmed the MTCC Decision in its May 20, 2019 Decision and denied reconsideration on July 8, 2019.
The Court of Appeals denied the petition for review in its May 18, 2021 Decision and denied reconsideration in its June 21, 2022 Resolution.
The petitioners then sought review before the Supreme Court under Rule 45 contesting mainly the sufficiency of the Information and the factual findings.

Issue

The primary issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Ariel and Genivieve for the crime of concubinage.

Petitioners' Contentions

The petitioners argued that the use of the term "private dwelling" in the Information instead of "conjugal dwelling" rendered the Information insufficient to charge concubinage under Article 334.
The petitioners disputed the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution's proof of cohabitation and knowledge of the married status by Genivieve.

Statutory Framework

Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code defines concubinage and prescribes three distinct modes of commission: keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who