Ariel Singgit was married to Consanita Rubio Singgit. They had five children together.

In 2008, Consanita left their home in Cebu and returned to her parents in Negros after discovering that Ariel had been seeing other women. Two years later, Ariel began a relationship with Genivieve But-ay.

According to Genivieve, Ariel introduced himself using a different name and never told her that he was already married. Their relationship eventually became intimate, and she became pregnant. Ariel promised to marry her and brought her to Mindanao, where she gave birth to their child. The two lived together there for several months as husband and wife.

Meanwhile, Consanita learned about the affair. She testified that she personally saw Ariel and Genivieve together, that neighbors knew Genivieve as Ariel’s “new wife,” and that Genivieve later admitted the relationship during a barangay confrontation. Several witnesses likewise testified that Ariel openly introduced Genivieve as his wife and that the two were living together.

A criminal case for concubinage was filed against both Ariel and Genivieve. The defense argued that the Information alleged that they lived together in a “private dwelling” instead of a “conjugal dwelling.” According to them, because Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code specifically mentions a “conjugal dwelling,” the Information failed to charge the proper offense. Were Ariel and Genivieve correct?

No, they are not. The Court explained that concubinage may be committed in three different ways.

A married man commits concubinage if he:

• keeps a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
• has sexual intercourse with another woman under scandalous circumstances; or
• cohabits with her in any other place.

The prosecution did not rely on the first mode. Instead, it charged Ariel with the third.

The evidence showed that Ariel and Genivieve lived together as husband and wife in Mindanao, where they stayed under one roof while awaiting the birth of their child. Witnesses likewise testified that Ariel openly introduced Genivieve as his new wife. Even Genivieve herself admitted that Ariel regularly came home to her while they were living together.

For the Supreme Court, these facts were sufficient to establish cohabitation. The Court explained that cohabitation means more than occasional sexual encounters. It refers to living together in the manner of husband and wife for a period of time. The law does not require that this occur in the spouses’ conjugal home. Living together in any other place is enough to satisfy the third mode of committing concubinage.

The Court likewise rejected the argument that the Information was defective simply because it used the phrase “private dwelling.” According to the Court, what matters is that the Information clearly alleged facts constituting the offense and sufficiently informed the accused of the charge against them. The use of the phrase “private dwelling” did not prevent the prosecution from proving that Ariel and Genivieve had cohabited in another place, which is itself one of the ways concubinage may be committed under the Revised Penal Code.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ariel for concubinage and of Genivieve as the concubine, subject only to a modification of Ariel’s penalty. Ariel was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term, while Genivieve was sentenced to destierro, the penalty prescribed by law for the concubine.

Singgit v. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 264179. February 27, 2023