Concubinage in the Philippines: Legal Implications of Living Together

Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, concubinage remains a recognized criminal offense under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), reflecting the country's strong emphasis on the sanctity of marriage and family values. Defined primarily in Article 334 of the RPC, concubinage pertains to a married man who engages in extramarital relations with a woman under specific circumstances. When the parties involved— the married man and his paramour— live together, this arrangement can have profound legal implications, potentially escalating the situation into a prosecutable case. This article explores the intricacies of concubinage in the context of cohabitation, including its elements, evidentiary requirements, penalties, defenses, and broader societal impacts within the Philippine jurisdiction. It underscores the gender-specific nature of the law, its historical roots, and evolving judicial interpretations.

Historical and Legal Background

Concubinage traces its origins to Spanish colonial law, incorporated into the Philippine Penal Code of 1887 and later retained in the 1930 RPC. The provision aims to protect the institution of marriage by criminalizing infidelity, but it notably distinguishes between adultery (applicable to married women) and concubinage (applicable to married men). This asymmetry has been a point of contention, often criticized for reflecting patriarchal biases where adultery requires mere proof of sexual intercourse, while concubinage demands more stringent conditions.

Under Philippine law, marriage is governed by the Family Code of 1987, which declares it a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman for establishing a conjugal and family life. Violations of marital fidelity, such as through concubinage, can intersect with civil remedies like legal separation or annulment, but the criminal aspect focuses on public morality and scandal.

Definition and Elements of Concubinage

Article 334 of the RPC defines concubinage as committed by any husband who shall:

Keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
Have sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife; or
Cohabit with her in any other place.

For a concubinage case to arise while living together, the third mode— cohabitation— is particularly relevant, though the first mode may apply if the cohabitation occurs in the family home. The Supreme Court has clarified these elements in landmark cases:

Keeping a Mistress in the Conjugal Dwelling: This implies the paramour is maintained or supported in the home shared with the wife. Cohabitation here is presumed scandalous due to its occurrence in the marital residence.
Sexual Intercourse Under Scandalous Circumstances: This requires proof of intimacy in a manner that offends public decency, such as in public or semi-public settings. Mere living together without evidence of scandal may not suffice unless coupled with other indicators.
Cohabitation in Any Other Place: Living together as husband and wife, even outside the conjugal home, constitutes this if it is habitual and involves sexual relations. The term "cohabit" means more than occasional meetings; it implies a semi-permanent living arrangement, akin to a common-law marriage.

All modes require that the offender is legally married, the woman knows of the marriage (for her liability), and the act causes scandal or moral outrage. Importantly, the offense is gender-specific: only a husband can be charged with concubinage, while the paramour (concubine) faces liability as an accomplice.

Implications of Living Together in a Concubinage Case

When a married man and his paramour live together, several legal implications emerge:

Criminal Liability

For the Husband: Cohabitation strengthens the case by providing tangible evidence of ongoing infidelity. Prosecutors can use utility bills, lease agreements, witness testimonies, or social media posts showing shared residency to prove the element of cohabitation. If proven, the husband faces imprisonment under prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).
For the Concubine: She is punishable by destierro (banishment from the offended party's residence, typically for 6 months and 1 day to 6 years). Her knowledge of the man's marital status is crucial; ignorance can be a defense.
Pardon and Prescription: The offended spouse (wife) must file the complaint, as concubinage is a private crime under Article 344 of the RPC. An express or implied pardon by the wife extinguishes the case. The prescriptive period is 15 years from discovery.

Evidentiary Challenges

Living together facilitates evidence gathering, such as:

Photographs or videos of shared living spaces.
Testimonies from neighbors or household staff about the couple's routine.
Financial records showing joint expenses.

However, the Supreme Court in cases like People v. Santos (G.R. No. 98447, 1993) emphasized that mere suspicion is insufficient; direct or circumstantial evidence of sexual relations and scandal must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Intersection with Other Laws

Family Code Implications: Cohabitation can support grounds for legal separation (Article 55) or psychological incapacity for annulment (Article 36). Property acquired during cohabitation may be subject to co-ownership rules under Article 147 or 148 of the Family Code, depending on the parties' good faith.
Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC) Act (RA 9262): If the cohabitation involves economic abuse or psychological harm to the legitimate wife or children, it may trigger VAWC charges, leading to protection orders or additional penalties.
Child Custody and Support: Children born from the concubinage relationship are illegitimate but entitled to support. Living together may complicate custody battles in the legitimate family, potentially leading to loss of parental authority.
Bigamy Overlap: If the cohabitation mimics a second marriage (e.g., through a sham ceremony), it could escalate to bigamy under Article 349 of the RPC, punishable by prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years).

Social and Economic Ramifications

Beyond criminality, living together in concubinage can lead to:

Social stigma, affecting employment or community standing, especially in conservative Philippine society.
Economic fallout, such as division of conjugal property or alimony claims in separation proceedings.
Psychological impacts on the legitimate family, often leading to counseling or mediation requirements in family courts.

Penalties and Sentencing

Upon conviction:

Husband: Prision correccional (minimum to medium), with possible aggravating circumstances like abuse of authority increasing the penalty.
Concubine: Destierro, which restricts residence but allows freedom otherwise.

Courts may impose accessory penalties, such as disqualification from public office. Probation is possible for first-time offenders under the Probation Law (PD 968), but not if the penalty exceeds 6 years.

Defenses and Mitigating Factors

Common defenses include:

Lack of Knowledge: The concubine proving she was unaware of the marriage.
No Scandal: Arguing the cohabitation was discreet and non-offensive.
Pardon by Spouse: Affidavit of desistance from the wife.
Invalid Marriage: If the husband's marriage is void ab initio, no concubinage exists.

Mitigating circumstances, like voluntary surrender, can reduce penalties.

Judicial Interpretations and Case Law

Philippine jurisprudence has shaped the application of concubinage:

People v. Pitoc (G.R. No. L-18803, 1963): Clarified that cohabitation requires habitual living together with sexual intimacy, not isolated incidents.
Beltran v. People (G.R. No. 137567, 2000): Emphasized the need for scandalous circumstances, ruling that private affairs without public knowledge do not qualify.
Recent trends show fewer prosecutions due to evolving societal norms, but cases like those involving public figures highlight persistent enforcement.

Challenges and Criticisms

The law's gender disparity has drawn criticism from feminist groups and legal scholars, arguing it violates equal protection under the 1987 Constitution. Proposals for decriminalization or equalization with adultery have been discussed in Congress, but no amendments have passed. Additionally, enforcement is complainant-dependent, leading to underreporting.

Conclusion

Concubinage while living together in the Philippines carries significant legal weight, intertwining criminal, civil, and familial consequences. It serves as a deterrent to marital infidelity but highlights outdated gender norms in the legal framework. Individuals in such situations should seek legal counsel to navigate potential charges, emphasizing reconciliation or amicable resolutions where possible. As societal attitudes shift, future reforms may redefine these implications, but for now, the RPC provisions remain firmly in place.