TITLE ELEVEN

CHAPTER ONE

ART. 333. ADULTERY

 ELEMENTS OF ADULTERY:
a. That the woman is married (even if marriage subsequently declared void);
b. That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;
c. That as regards to the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to
be married.
 The offended party must be legally married to the offender at the time of the commission of
the crime.
 EACH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE CONSTITUTES A CRIME of adultery. Thus, the crime of
adultery is not a continuing offense, but rather, an instantaneous crime. Which means, it is
consummated and completed at the moment of carnal union.
 The essence of adultery is the violation of marital vow.
 If the person guilty of adultery committed the offense while being abandoned without
justification of the offended spouse, the penalty lower in degree shall be imposed.
 With regards to the man (whether single or married), to be convicted of adultery, he must
have the knowledge that the woman with whom he had sexual intercourse is married,
which is an essential element. However, a married man who is not liable for adultery,
because he did not know that the woman is married, may be held liable for concubinage.
 EFFECT OF PARDON (REQUISITES:)
a. The pardon must come before the institution of the criminal prosecution; and
b. Both offenders must be pardoned by the offended party.
 Under the law, there cannot be an accomplice in the crime of adultery, although in fact,
there can be such an accomplice.

ART. 334. CONCUBINAGE

 3 WAYS OF COMMITTING CONCUBINAGE:
a. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; or
b. By having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who
is not his wife; or
c. By cohabiting with her in any other place
 ELEMENTS:
a. That the man must be married
b. That he committed any of the acts enumerated above
c. That as regards to the woman, she must know him to be married.
 Like adultery, concubinage is a violation of the marital vow,
 The offender must be a married man. The woman becomes liable only when she knows
him to be married prior to the commission of the crime.
 A married man is not liable for concubinage for mere sexual relations with a woman not his
wife.
 Scandalous circumstances are not necessary to make a husband guilty of concubinage by
keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling.
  CONJUGAL DWELLING refers to the home of the husband and wife even if the wife
happens to be temporarily absent on any account.
 It is only when the mistress is kept elsewhere (outside of the conjugal dwelling) that
“scandalous circumstances” become an element of the crime.
 THE SCANDAL PRODUCED BY THE CONCUBINAGE OF A MARRIED MAN OCCURS
WHEN:
a. He and his mistress live in the same room of a house
b. They appear together in public
c. Performs acts in sight of the community which gives rise to criticism and general
protest among the neighbors.
 In the third way of committing the crime, mere cohabitation is sufficient. Proof of
scandalous circumstances is not necessary.
 COHABIT – means to dwell together, in the manner of husband and wife, for some periods
of time for unlawful intercourse. Thus, there is no concubinage if a married man is surprised
in the act of sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife in a hotel.
 A married person who keeps a mistress in an apartment furnished by him is not guilty of
concubinage if he does not live or sleep with her in the same apartment.
 Adultery is more severely punished than concubinage because the former makes possible
the introduction of another’s blood into the family that the offended husband may have
another man’s son bearing his (husband) name and receiving support from him.

CASE DIGEST
PILAPIL V. SOMERA 174 SCRA 563

FACTS: The petitioner, Filipina citizen, Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, and private respondents Erich
Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, were married before the Registrar of Births,
Marriages, and Deaths in Germany on September 7, 1979. However, due to some
circumstances, the two got divorced on January 15, 1986 in Germany, after having a child
on April 20, 1980. The child was given under the custody of the petitioner. However, just
more than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, on June 27, 1986, the
private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the city of Manila, alleging that,
while still married to the petitioner, the latter had an affair with men named William Chia
and Jesus Chua in 1982 and 1983, respectively.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner be adjudged guilty of adultery even if she is no longer married to the
private respondent, when the case is filed after the divorce decree took effect and the act
alleged to the petitioner is committed while the two are still married.

DECISION: The private respondent, Erich Geiling, is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He has
no standing to sue the petitioner in the case since by virtue of the divorce decree filed in
Germany, which was honoured in Philippine court, the two got totally separated. Thus,
Geiling is no longer a husband of Pilapil, but rather, a private person. Under the law, it is
the offended spouse who should file the case, nobody else. But in this instance, it is not.
The court then decided to dismiss the case.