Comparing Defamation, Adultery, Concubinage, and Related Offenses (Revised Penal Code–Centered)

1) Why these topics are grouped the way they are

Philippine criminal law (largely through the Revised Penal Code, “RPC”) historically grouped certain offenses around the protected interests they primarily injure:

Honor: a person’s reputation, dignity, and standing in the community. → The core idea is defamation: unlawful attacks on reputation.
Chastity: historically tied to sexual morality, family integrity, and protection of women and minors (as the law was framed at the time). → The core ideas are marital fidelity (adultery/concubinage) and sexual offenses involving consent and vulnerability (seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness).

Modern constitutional values (privacy, equality, free speech) and newer statutes have reshaped how these crimes are enforced and argued, but the RPC structure still matters for elements, defenses, and procedure.

2) Crimes Against Honor (RPC Title Thirteen): the defamation family

A. Defamation: the umbrella concept (RPC Art. 353)

Defamation is the public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect (real or imaginary), or any act/condition/status that tends to cause a person’s dishonor, discredit, or contempt.

Defamation appears mainly as:

Libel (written/recorded)
Slander / Oral defamation (spoken)
Slander by deed (defamatory acts)

B. Libel (RPC Art. 353, 355–360)

Libel is defamation committed by writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or similar means.

1) Elements (typical checklist)

To convict, the prosecution generally proves:

Defamatory imputation (crime, vice, defect, etc.)
Publication (communicated to a third person)
Identification of the offended party (named or reasonably identifiable)
Malice (generally presumed in defamatory imputations, subject to exceptions)

2) Malice: presumed vs. actual

Malice in law: presumed from the defamatory nature of the imputation.
Malice in fact: ill will or bad motive, required in some situations (notably when the statement is privileged).

3) Privileged communications (RPC Art. 354)

Some statements are not presumed malicious (and may be protected), commonly including:

Private communications made in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty to someone with an interest in the matter (e.g., reporting misconduct to a proper authority), if made in good faith.
Fair and true reports of official proceedings (legislative, judicial, or other official acts), without comments/remarks, and made in good faith.

In practice, privilege often becomes the battleground: Was it privileged? Was it fair? Was it made in good faith?

4) Truth as a defense (RPC Art. 361; also doctrine)

Truth alone is not always enough. Traditionally, the law asks whether the accused can show:

The imputation is true (or substantially true), and
It was published with good motives and for justifiable ends (There are nuances depending on whether the offended party is a public officer/public figure and whether the matter is of public interest; constitutional free speech doctrine heavily influences this area.)

5) Who can be liable

The author of the defamatory matter.
The publisher/editor (depending on role and participation).
Others involved may be included depending on statutory rules and proof of participation.

6) Venue and procedure (very important in libel)

Written defamation has special procedural and venue rules (commonly associated with RPC Art. 360 and related practice). Venue often depends on:

Where it was printed and first published, and/or
Where the offended party resided at the time, with special rules if the offended party is a public officer.

Because venue can be case-dispositive, libel litigation often starts with motions challenging jurisdiction/venue.

7) Penalty (general)

Libel is generally punished with prisión correccional (in varying degrees) or fine, depending on the circumstances and the final judgment’s application of the Code.

C. Oral Defamation / Slander (RPC Art. 358)

Slander is defamation by spoken words.

It is classified as:

Grave (serious) oral defamation or
Slight oral defamation

The distinction depends on context: the language used, the relationship of the parties, provocation, tone, setting, intent, and social context. The same words can be “grave” in one setting and “slight” in another.

Key point: Because penalties differ, the classification affects:

Bail, prescription, and sometimes
The strategic posture of both parties.

D. Slander by Deed (RPC Art. 359)

This is defamation committed through acts rather than words—acts that cast dishonor or contempt.

Examples often discussed in cases include humiliating gestures or actions that are meant to publicly degrade someone.

E. Related offenses under “Honor”

1) Incriminatory Machinations (RPC Art. 363)

Two common forms:

Incriminating an innocent person: performing acts to directly cause an innocent person to be accused.
Intriguing against honor (sometimes placed under Art. 364): spreading intrigue to blemish honor, typically by creating suspicion or gossiping in a way that harms reputation even if you don’t directly state a defamatory imputation as fact.

These are less commonly charged than libel/slander but matter when a scenario doesn’t fit classic defamation cleanly.

F. Honor vs. free speech: the constitutional overlay

Defamation law constantly interacts with:

Freedom of speech and of the press,
The public figure/public interest doctrine,
The difference between facts and opinions, and
The requirement of actual malice in certain contexts (constitutional doctrine shaping criminal and civil liability).

In real disputes, outcomes often turn on whether the statement was:

A factual assertion presented as true,
A protected opinion/commentary,
A fair report, or
A good-faith complaint to authorities.

3) Crimes Against Chastity (RPC Title Eleven): marital infidelity and “private crimes”

A. The big picture

Within the RPC framework, the chastity crimes include:

Adultery (Art. 333)
Concubinage (Art. 334)
Qualified seduction (Art. 337)
Simple seduction (Art. 338)
Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336)
Abduction (e.g., Arts. 342–343)

However, note a major modern shift:

Rape was historically in this title but is now treated differently under later law (notably R.A. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which reclassified rape as a crime against persons and modernized definitions).

Because your topic focuses on adultery, concubinage, and related offenses, the procedural concept of “private crimes” becomes crucial.

B. “Private crimes” and who can start the case (RPC Art. 344)

Several chastity offenses (including adultery and concubinage) generally cannot be prosecuted without a complaint filed by specific persons, typically the offended party.

This is not just technical—it’s foundational:

Without the proper complaint, the case can be dismissed.
The law limits who has standing to initiate prosecution to avoid public scandal and to respect family privacy (historically framed).

4) Adultery (RPC Art. 333)

A. Core definition

Adultery is committed by:

A married woman who has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband, and
The man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing she is married.

B. Key elements

For the wife:

She is legally married (valid marriage at the time), and
She had sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.

For the male partner:

He had sexual intercourse with her, and
He knew she was married.

C. Sexual intercourse requirement

Adultery requires sexual intercourse in the strict sense (traditional doctrine: carnal knowledge). Acts short of intercourse may fall under other offenses or not be criminal under this title, depending on the facts.

D. Each act can be a separate offense

Each act of sexual intercourse can be treated as a distinct count, affecting exposure and charging strategy.

E. Penalty (general)

Adultery is punished more severely than concubinage under the RPC’s historical scheme (commonly prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods), subject to the court’s final application.

F. Procedural rules unique to adultery

Complaint requirement: must be filed by the offended husband.
Both parties must be included: as a rule, the husband cannot prosecute only one (wife or paramour) if both are alive; the complaint must include both guilty parties.
Consent or pardon bars prosecution:
- Consent to the adultery can bar prosecution.
- Pardon (express or implied) can bar prosecution, often requiring careful proof of voluntary forgiveness and knowledge of the offense.

G. Common litigation fault lines

Was the marriage valid at the time? (If the marriage is void ab initio, adultery may not lie—though facts can trigger other liabilities.)
Can knowledge of marriage be proven against the male partner?
Did the husband forgive or consent?
Are there admissibility issues (e.g., privacy, illegally obtained evidence)?

5) Concubinage (RPC Art. 334)

A. Core definition

Concubinage is committed by a married man in any of these modes:

Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or
Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife, or
Cohabiting with such woman in any other place.

The woman is liable if she knew him to be married.

B. Key elements

For the husband:

He is married, and he commits any of the three modes above.

For the concubine:

She participates, and
She knew he was married.

C. The “modes” matter a lot

Concubinage is not simply “a married man had sex.” The prosecution must prove one of the statutory modes:

Mistress in the conjugal dwelling: focuses on the marital home.
Scandalous circumstances: heavily fact-based; looks at notoriety, public exposure, brazenness, community awareness, humiliation to the spouse.
Cohabitation elsewhere: implies a more stable, domestic-like arrangement, not a one-off.

If the facts show sexual relations but don’t satisfy any mode, concubinage may fail.

D. Penalties (general)

The married man: typically prisión correccional (lower than adultery in the Code’s structure).
The concubine: often destierro (banishment from certain places within a specified radius), reflecting the law’s historical design.

E. Procedural rules unique to concubinage

Complaint requirement: must be filed by the offended wife.
Both parties rule: similar principle—if both are alive, the complaint generally must include both offenders.
Consent or pardon: bars prosecution similarly to adultery.

6) Comparing Adultery vs. Concubinage (substance + proof + strategy)

A. What must be proven

Aspect	Adultery	Concubinage
Offender spouse	Married woman	Married man
Core act	Sexual intercourse alone suffices	Must prove 1 of 3 statutory modes
“Public scandal” required?	No	Sometimes (depending on mode)
Knowledge required for partner	Man must know she’s married	Woman must know he’s married
Typical proof focus	Evidence of intercourse + marriage	Evidence of dwelling/cohabitation/scandal + marriage

B. Why concubinage is often harder to prove

Because it’s mode-based, concubinage cases often collapse on:

Failure to prove cohabitation or conjugal dwelling, or
Failure to establish scandalous circumstances beyond mere suspicion.

C. Penalty asymmetry

The RPC’s scheme is historically gendered. Modern critiques note tension with equality principles, but the provisions remain in force unless amended by Congress or reinterpreted by controlling jurisprudence.

7) Other “Crimes Against Chastity” often linked in discussions

A. Acts of Lasciviousness (RPC Art. 336)

This involves lewd acts committed under circumstances that (in many cases) overlap conceptually with sexual offenses, but it is distinct from adultery/concubinage.

Key idea: lewd acts done by force/intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason/unconscious, or under certain vulnerability conditions (depending on the statutory text and later interpretive doctrines). It is fact-sensitive and can overlap with modern sexual violence statutes depending on the scenario.

B. Seduction (Qualified / Simple) (RPC Arts. 337–338)

Historically framed around consent obtained through abuse of authority, trust, or deception, often involving minors or women under the care of the offender.

These offenses have been criticized as outdated, but they still appear in the Code and sometimes arise in bar exam hypotheticals and older fact patterns.

C. Abduction (RPC Arts. 342–343)

Forcible abduction: taking a woman against her will with lewd designs.
Consented abduction: taking a minor virgin with her consent but without parental consent, again historically framed.

Like seduction, abduction concepts can overlap with kidnapping/illegal detention, trafficking, and violence against women statutes depending on facts.

D. “Private crimes” procedural rule (again)

Many of these chastity offenses share a key procedural feature:

prosecution often requires a complaint by the offended party (or certain relatives/guardians if the offended party is a minor or incapacitated), and
certain acts (like marriage between offender and offended party in specific crimes) can extinguish criminal liability under the RPC’s framework for some offenses.

8) The procedural spine: complaint, standing, pardon, and related rules

A. Complaint requirement (who may file)

Adultery: offended husband
Concubinage: offended wife
Seduction/abduction/acts of lasciviousness (traditional RPC structure): offended party, and in some cases parents, grandparents, or guardian depending on age/capacity.

Without the proper complaint, the prosecutor generally cannot validly proceed.

B. Inclusion of both offenders

In adultery/concubinage, the offended spouse generally must proceed against both guilty parties (if both alive), not selectively.

C. Consent and pardon

Consent prior to the act can bar prosecution.
Pardon after the act can bar prosecution, if proven. Pardon issues often hinge on:
Whether the offended spouse had full knowledge of the offense,
Whether the act of forgiveness was voluntary, and
Whether forgiveness was express or can be implied from conduct.

D. Relationship to civil actions and family law

Adultery/concubinage often intersects with:

Legal separation grounds under the Family Code,
Annulment/nullity petitions,
Child custody disputes,
Damages (civil liability), and
In some scenarios, protective statutes like R.A. 9262 (VAWC) if facts involve psychological violence, economic abuse, or harassment.

Criminal prosecution is not the only (or always the best) legal tool; many clients pursue civil/family remedies even when criminal action is barred by procedural limits or evidentiary challenges.

9) Where “Honor” and “Chastity” collide: defamatory accusations of infidelity

A. Accusing someone of adultery/concubinage can be defamation

Infidelity allegations can be:

Imputation of a crime (adultery/concubinage),
Imputation of a vice/defect (immorality), and may trigger libel/slander if published with the required elements.

B. Common real-world scenarios

Social media posts alleging “adulterer” / “kabit” / “cheater”
Barangay/community announcements
Office group chats
Affidavits and pleadings in court

C. Privilege defenses often arise

Statements made:

In a judicial pleading (relevant allegations),
In a complaint to authorities, may be privileged (absolute or qualified depending on context and doctrine), but privilege is not automatic—irrelevance, bad faith, or unnecessary publication can create exposure.

D. The “kabit” problem

Calling someone a “kabit” can be defamatory if it imputes immorality or unlawful relations. Defenses often revolve around:

Was it an opinion or a factual assertion?
Was it privileged (e.g., a complaint to a proper authority)?
Was there malice?

10) Cyber overlay: when defamation happens online

Online publication can convert a reputational dispute into exposure under cybercrime-related provisions (commonly discussed under R.A. 10175, including “cyber libel”). This area evolves through jurisprudence and enforcement practice, and issues commonly litigated include:

Whether the post is libelous under RPC standards,
Jurisdiction/venue based on access and publication,
Prescription and charging decisions,
Liability of sharers/republishers depending on participation and intent.

Because cyber enforcement practice changes and case law develops, anyone handling an actual case should check the most current controlling rulings and prosecutorial guidance.

11) Practical proof issues (how these cases are won or lost)

A. Defamation cases: proof pressure points

Identification: “Everyone knew it was him” must be anchored in evidence.
Publication: third-person communication must be proven.
Malice/privilege: often the decisive battleground.
Context: tone, audience, platform, prior disputes, provocation.

B. Adultery/concubinage cases: proof pressure points

Valid marriage and timing.
Direct proof vs circumstantial proof:
- Adultery requires proof of intercourse—often hard without strong circumstantial evidence.
- Concubinage requires proof of a statutory mode—often attacked as insufficient.
Knowledge of marriage by the third party.
Pardon/consent defenses.
Privacy and admissibility: unlawfully obtained evidence can backfire.

12) Quick reference: which offense fits which fact pattern?

If the harm is reputational…

Written post/article/message harming reputation → Libel
Spoken insults harming reputation → Oral defamation
Humiliating act/gesture harming reputation → Slander by deed
Planting suspicion/gossip without a direct imputation → Intriguing against honor (possible fit)

If the harm is marital fidelity (criminal)…

Married woman + intercourse with man not husband → Adultery
Married man + mistress in dwelling / scandalous intercourse / cohabitation → Concubinage

If the scenario is sexual misconduct not fitting adultery/concubinage…

Lewd acts, coercion, vulnerability, minors → Acts of lasciviousness or other modern sexual violence statutes depending on facts.

13) Policy and reform notes (important context)

These provisions reflect different eras:

Defamation law is continuously tested against constitutional free speech norms.
Adultery/concubinage reflect a historical gendered framework and raise modern equality/privacy debates.
Chastity offenses like seduction/abduction reflect older moral assumptions; modern law increasingly frames sexual harm in terms of consent, coercion, and exploitation, not “chastity.”

Yet, until amended or superseded, these remain part of the enforceable legal landscape and still appear in litigation and exam problems.

14) Takeaways (the clean comparison)

Defamation protects reputation; it turns on publication + identification + malice/privilege.
Adultery is act-based (intercourse) and often procedurally gated by the offended spouse’s complaint.
Concubinage is mode-based (dwelling/scandal/cohabitation), making it harder to prove, and also complaint-gated.
“Related offenses” fill gaps: intriguing, incriminatory machinations, and other chastity offenses cover conduct that doesn’t neatly fit the main categories.

If you want, I can also provide:

a case-pleading style elements checklist per crime (one page), or
a bar-exam style flowchart to choose the correct charge based on facts.