By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
ARIEL SINGGIT AND GENIVIEVE BUT-AY VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 264179 (FEBRUARY
27, 2023): RESTATEMENT OF THE ELEMENTS OF CONCUBINAGE
Private complainant Consanita Singgit alleged that she and petitioner Ariel Singgit are legally
married and have five (5) children. In April 2008, she caught her husband having a mistress. Because she
had a heart problem, she left their conjugal home in Sitio Fatima, Lagtang, Talisay City and moved to her
parents’ house in Negros. Private Complainant Singgit alleged that by then, her husband had sexual
relations with many women. In 2008, she saw her husband holding hands with his mistress and
discovered text messages on her husband’s mobile phone from a girl who, according to her daughter,
kept calling her husband. In 2010, her husband brought his mistress, petitioner Genivieve But-ay, to
their conjugal dwelling and the two lived there. Her husband and petitioner But-ay eventually had a
child. Sometime in January 2011, she returned home to their conjugal dwelling and one time, chanced
upon her husband naked in a room with his mistress petitioner But-ay. Private complainant demanded
from his husband and mistress to leave the conjugal dwelling. On 13 August 2013, private complainant
had petitioner But-ay summoned to the Barangay Hall and the latter admitted her illicit affair with her
husband. Petitioners Singgit and But-ay did not deny the illicit affair but petitioner Singgit alleged that
she did not bring petitioner But-ay to their conjugal dwelling but brought to Mindanao to give birth. For
her part, petitioner But-ay alleged that she did not know that petitioner Singgit is married to the private
complainant.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities found petitioners Singgit and But-ay guilty as charged. The
trial court held that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of
the crime of concubinage as the petitioners openly cohabited as husband and wife with petitioner
Singgit introducing petitioner But-ay as his wife and that there was enough evidence that the latter was
aware that the former is a married man and still, they cohabited together under one roof. The RTC and
Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the first level court.
The Supreme Court restated the elements of concubinage, to wit: 1) that the man must be
married; 2) that he committed any of the following: a) keeping mistress in a conjugal abode; b) having
sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife; c) cohabiting with
her in any other place; and 3) that as regards the woman, she must know him to be married. The
Supreme Court held that it is inconsequential that the Information used “private dwelling” instead of
“conjugal dwelling” since it will still be an act of concubinage for a married man to cohabit with a
woman not his wife in any other place. The Court found the testimony of a neighbor credible as she
categorically stated that petitioner Singgit introduced petitioner But-ay as his new wife and that the
latter admitted in open court that petitioner Singgit would go to her whenever he had time off from
work. Finally, it was established that they lived in Agusan for petitioner But-ay to give birth and the
reason for going to far away place is to avoid prying eyes, hence, there is no reason for petitioner But-ay
not to know that petitioner Singgit is a married man.