No no no, this is not really about the game, but more of a 'pretend' play one often does during one's younger years. Enough said, on to the topic.
As Phoenix Wright says:
TAKE THAT!!!I found a very "interesting" case sample where the case is DISMISSED, even with numerous evidences/statements presented.
Link can be found here, read and download, it's publicly available:
http://www.marikinaprosecutors.com/pdfs/reso/03mar/07-2316%20-%20RTP.pdf"Concubinage" can be defined by the following:
"
the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes “concubinage” in Article 334 as follows: “Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.”
Prision correccional ranges from a minimum of six months and one day up to a maximum of six years.
The definition above can be broken down this way. Concubinage is committed by a man in several ways:(1) By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; OR
(2) By having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife; OR
(3) By cohabiting with her in any other place.
Why is concubinage difficult to prove in court?I think you will agree with me that there are very few men who would dare to bring or allow his mistress to live in the conjugal dwelling. Not unless of course if the wife allows it for whatever reason …
As to number (2) above, an adulterous affair by its nature is done secretively; a man and his paramour cannot be expected to have sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances.
Now, number (3) above. If you talk to lawyers as to filing a case for concubinage, they will ask you for evidences to prove cohabitation (receipts for the apartment for example where the man and mistress are living, receipts for Meralco, PLDT, etc, affidavits of eyewitnesses that the man and mistress are really cohabiting, etc.)
If the evidence merely proves that the husband is having an extra-marital affair, that will not necessarily mean that he can be convicted of concubinage.
If the mistress gets pregnant and gives birth, can that be used as evidence for concubinage against the husband? Again, please take note of how concubinage is committed as I discussed under numbers (1) up to (3). The pregnancy is not necessarily proof of cohabitation.
from: http://famli.blogspot.com/2006/01/adultery-concubinage-and-psychological.html
Going back from the PDF link I've mentioned earlier, the complainant originally submitted the following:
1. Sworn Statements of her daugthers;
2. Photograph of respondents with their two children;
3. Identification Card of "male respondent" bearing the name of "female respondent" as the person to be informed/called in case of emergency;
4. Certificate of Live Birth of the "respondent's baby",
5. Barangay Certificate stating that both respondents has been
residing at "specified address.
Likewise, in the prosecution for the crime of Concubinage as defined under Article
334 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must be present, to wit:
1. The man must be married;
2. That he committed any of the following acts:
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling,
b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances
with a woman who is not his wife,
c. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
3. That as regards the woman, she must know him to married
(As stated in the pdf file...)
Lastly, the following evidence submitted failed to convince us that
cohabitation existed, to wit:
a. Complainant discovery that "male" was cohabiting with
"female" at "address" from
2002 to 2004 sans any explanation on how it came to her
knowledge (par. 7 of the Complaint);
b. "Daughter of complainant" discovered her father in Ali Mall with respondent who
was then pregnant (par. 8 and 9 of the Complaint);
c. "Daughter of complainant" discovery of an address from a piece of paper inside "male respondent's" car purportedly that of "address" to which she saw a plump woman wearing shorts and discovered her father’s car outside said house (par.10 and 11 of the Complaint);
d. Complainant’s statement that she went to the address and saw two
children playing with a teenager to which when she asked the latter if it
is the residence of the “surname” he answered in the affirmative but
complainant immediately left the place (par. 12 of the Complaint)
e. Photograph of respondents with their two children;
f. Identification Card of "male respondent" bearing the name of "female respondent" as the person to be informed/called in case of emergency;
g. Certificate of Live Birth of "respondent's baby",
h. Barangay Certificate stating that both respondents has been residing at
"address" rom April 2004 to May 2005 sans the supporting
statement of neighbors to prove that respondents are indeed
cohabiting and represented themselves as husband and wife in said
community.
The element of cohabitation under the third way of committing the crime
of concubinage must be proved by convincing evidence. To cohabit means to dwell together, in the manner of husband and wife, for some period of time, as distinguished from occasional, transient interview for unlawful intercourse.
(People vs. Benlot, et al., 16 C.A. Rep. 539).
The foregoing documents and allegations failed to prove that "male respondent" and "female respondent" dwell together as husband and wife neither did it provide any evidence to substantiate the circumstances on how “cohabitation” between the respondents existed at "address". The
fact that complainant discovered "female" and her children residing at said
address and that she bore a child to "male" is not sufficient to prove
cohabitation within the meaning of law. Needless to say, there was no statement to the fact that a witness saw the person of Bernardo at said address and/or that he was residing thereat.
In Bitangcor v. Tan, {112 SCRA 113; See also A. Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines 115-117 (1995)} the Supreme Court held that the term “cohabitation” or “living together as husband and wife” means not only residing under one roof, but also having repeated sexual intercourse.
Cohabitation, of course, means more than sexual intercourse, especially when one of the parties is already old and may no longer be interested in sex. At the very least, cohabitation is the public assumption by a man and a woman of the marital relation, and dwelling together as man and wife, thereby holding themselves out to the public as such. Secret meetings or nights clandestinely spent together, even if often repeated, do not constitute such kind of cohabitation; they are merely meretricious.
Notably, complainant herself admitted to be Bernardo’s concubine for the
latter is still married to one "complainant" when they contracted their
marriage. This has been vocally stated in her Sworn Statement submitted in the Physical Injury case filed in Quezon City (please see Annex “1-C” of Rejoinder.
Hence, violating the time tested principle that “HE WHO COMES TO COURT MUST
COME IN CLEAN HANDS”.
WHEREFORE, there being no evidence to anchor probable cause, the case is recommended for DISMISSAL.
