Is a Woman Liable for Concubinage If She Didn’t Know the Man Was Married?

Philippine law explained, with elements, defenses, procedures, and practical tips

The short answer

Generally, a woman (the “concubine”) may be criminally liable for concubinage only if she knowingly engages in any of the acts punished with a man who is legally married. Good faith—i.e., a genuine lack of knowledge of the man’s existing marriage—can negate criminal intent and is a recognized defense in prosecutions for private crimes affecting marital relations.

The legal backdrop

What is concubinage?

Concubinage is a crime under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) that penalizes a married man who, with a woman not his wife, commits any of the following:

Keeps a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
Has sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances; or
Cohabits with her in any other place.

The statute also penalizes the woman who participates in these acts (often referred to as the “concubine”), but with a lighter penalty than the husband.

Penalty structure (overview):

Husband: imprisonment in the range of prisión correccional (minimum to medium).

Woman (concubine): destierro (banishment—i.e., prohibition from entering a specified radius around the offended spouse’s residence or other places fixed by the court).

(Exact durations and distances are set by the court in accordance with the RPC’s general rules on penalties.)

Elements the prosecution must prove

To convict the woman, the State must establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that:

The man was legally married at the material time;
One of the three modes of concubinage occurred (conjugal dwelling, scandalous intercourse, or cohabitation elsewhere); and
She participated with knowledge of the man’s marriage (i.e., with intent/dolo), rather than in good faith.

Although the text of Article 334 focuses on the acts of the husband, criminal liability for the woman still requires culpable participation. Philippine criminal law, as a rule, does not impose liability without fault; good faith or mistake of fact (believing the man to be single) negatives intent.

“I didn’t know he was married”: how this defense works

1) Good faith / Mistake of fact

If the woman honestly and reasonably believed the man was single (or otherwise free to marry), she lacks the criminal intent required for liability. This is especially compelling where the man affirmatively misrepresented his civil status and corroborating circumstances support her belief (e.g., he introduced her to friends/family as single; produced a “CENOMAR”; concealed his marital home; used a different name).

What helps show good faith:

Messages, emails, or posts where the man states he is single/separated/annulled;
A CENOMAR or other documents the man presented;
Witnesses who can attest to how he represented himself;
Evidence that the relationship was not public or scandalous, and that she never entered the conjugal dwelling knowing it was such.

2) No conspiracy / limited participation

Even if the man was married, the woman’s criminal participation must be proved. For example, isolated encounters, or contact that does not meet any of the three statutory modes, will not suffice. “Cohabitation” suggests habitual living together, and “scandalous circumstances” require publicity and notoriety that shock public morals—not mere secrecy.

3) Void marriages and uncertainty

If the man’s first marriage was void ab initio, he is not legally “married.” However, in criminal cases, courts typically require reliable proof of nullity; mere allegations of voidness or separation do not treat the marriage as nonexistent. For the woman’s defense, what matters is her good-faith belief at the time—supported by objective indications that would make a reasonable person think he was free to marry.

Comparing concubinage with adultery (to clarify standards)

Adultery (Art. 333 RPC) punishes the married woman and her paramour; the paramour must know that the woman is married.
Concubinage (Art. 334 RPC) punishes the married man for specified acts and the concubine who participates. While Article 334 doesn’t spell out a “knowledge” element in the same way, criminal intent still applies; thus, lack of knowledge remains a substantive defense for the woman.

Procedural features unique to concubinage

1) It’s a “private crime”

No case may proceed without a complaint by the offended spouse (the wife).
As with adultery, pardon (forgiveness) by the offended spouse bars prosecution, but pardon must be given to both offenders (husband and concubine) to be effective.

2) Indispensable parties to the complaint

The offended wife who files generally must implead both the husband and the alleged concubine if she wants both to be prosecuted.
If she sues only the husband, the woman won’t be prosecuted in that case; if she sues only the woman, the case cannot prosper.

3) Prescription (time limits)

Concubinage (punished by a correctional penalty) generally prescribes in 10 years.
For continuing offenses (e.g., ongoing cohabitation), the clock typically runs from the last day of the continuing act or from discovery by the offended spouse or authorities.

Evidence typically considered

Proof of the husband’s existing marriage (e.g., marriage certificate, admissions);
Nature of the living arrangement (leases, bills, joint addresses—especially if the address is the conjugal home);
Publicity/scandal (neighbors’ testimonies, photos, social media, public displays suggesting notoriety);
The woman’s state of mind (communications, the man’s representations, diligence exercised by the woman to verify status).

Practical guidance if you are (or represent) the woman

Document good faith early. Secure copies of any representations the man made (messages, affidavits, posts).
Gather witnesses who can attest to how he presented himself and to your lack of knowledge.
Avoid the conjugal dwelling or any setting that could be objectively tied to the spouse’s home.
Be wary of “separation” narratives. Separation is not annulment or nullity; insist on clear proof if civil status matters to you.
If charged, assert defenses promptly: lack of knowledge (good faith), absence of the statutory modes (no cohabitation/scandal/conjugal dwelling), and any procedural defects (e.g., lack of proper complaint, ineffective pardon, prescription).
Consider civil exposure. Even if criminal liability fails, the offended spouse may pursue civil claims (e.g., moral damages under tort principles) depending on facts—though liability there also requires proof.

Key takeaways

The woman’s liability in concubinage hinges on participation with knowledge that the man was married, coupled with one of the three specific modes (conjugal dwelling, scandalous intercourse, or cohabitation elsewhere).
Good faith (lack of knowledge), no conspiracy, or failure to prove a statutory mode defeats criminal liability.
Concubinage is a private crime: it needs the offended wife’s complaint; pardon bars the action; and it prescribes (ordinarily in 10 years, counting rules apply).
Evidence of the woman’s state of mind is central; objective corroboration of good faith greatly strengthens the defense.

Final note

This article provides a comprehensive framework you can use to analyze a specific situation. For real cases, facts are everything: even small details (addresses, text messages, introductions, and timing) can be decisive. If you need, I can help tailor this to a concrete fact pattern and draft a defense-outline checklist.