Republic of the Philippines

2 nd
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF
CAPAS-BAMBAN-CONCEPCION
Third Judicial Region
Capas, Tarlac

YNA BANDONA
Complainant,

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 135-14

For CONCUBINAGE

TOTOY MOLA and BABY GIRL

Respondents.
x ---------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION

This is a complaint for the crime of Concubinage defined under

Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code filed against Totoy Mola and Baby Girl:

Complainant alleged that she is married to Totoy Mola (“Totoy” for brevity)
on June 13, 2014. On 15 November 2021, complainant discovered of her
husband’s illicit affair when she saw the respondents Totoy and Baby in
Starbucks Nepo Quad, eating together. Having doubts of her husband’s fidelity,
she decided to investigate. she left the establishment, stayed in her car and saw
them leaving the establishment after her husband gave Baby a kiss on the cheek.

Later, complainant saw a store receipt in her husband's pants which shows
jewelry, a necklace, bought from Pandiego by Totoy. She also saw a used
roundtrip plane ticket for MNL-SIN-MNL. The tickets were issued under the
names of respondents, for the period of March 18-19, 2022. The complainant
also found receipts showing that the respondents had stayed together in one suite
at the Mahal Kita Hotel on April 29, 2022. Their stay together at a hotel has also
persuaded the complainant that they have already had carnal knowledge of one
another.

Lastly, the complainant discovered that respondents were cohabiting at

Block 1 Lot 55 Brgy. Dolores, Capas, Tarlac, Philippines and were meeting every
weekends posing as husband and wife around their neighbors. In support of this
complaint, Yna submitted the following, to wit:

1. Sworn Statement of The chairman of brgy. Dolores Pocholo B.

Olate;
2. Official of Pandiego Jewelry Store;
3. Roundtrip plane ticket for MNL-SIN-MNL issued under the respondent ;
4. Official invoice of Mahal Kita Hotel issued to respondent.
 5. Screenshot of facebook post of Totoy Mola dated May 10,2022.

Respondent Baby Girl denied knowledge of the fact that Totoy is married.
She alleged that nowhere in the sworn statement of the complainant, nor in the
evidence presented does it show that she had prior knowledge of the status of Totoy
as being married.

In her reply, complainant maintained the allegation stated in the

complaint. She belied Baby Girl’s claim that she is unaware of the complainant
and Totoy’s marriage, submitting a screenshot of her husband’s public facebook
post of greeting her on their wedding anniversary (Annex A of reply-affidavit).

The Respondent Totoy Mola claimed that the element “By having sexual
intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife” is
not present since none of the acts of the respondents were proved by the
testimony of the people from the vicinity hence there is no scandal. The
testimony of his wife that she saw hotel receipts of him and Baby Girl
staying together in one suite at the Mahal Kita Hotel and that he rented a
house in Capas for Baby Girl and his wife saw him meeting her every
weekends posing as her husband to their neighbors, is not sufficient to
prove the crime of concubinage. Respondent Totoy Mola also denied the
allegations against him, stating in his counter-affidavit that the complainant does not
have sufficient ground to prove the crime of concubinage. Respondent Totoy Mola
claimed that his visit to Baby Girl’s apartment in Block 1 Lot 55 Brgy. Dolores,
Capas, Tarlac is only occasional and he did not live nor sleep in said
apartment.

Again, in her reply, complainant maintained the allegation stated in the

complaint. The complainant presented the sworn statement of Brgy. Dolores’
barangay chairman, Mr. Pocholo B. Olate (Annex B of reply-affidavit) stating that
The respondents presented themselves as husband and wife to him and their
neighbors whenever they have a small chat or whenever they attend an event in
their barangay. Mr. Olate in his sworn statement also stated that he frequently sees
Totoy in several occasion of entering the apartment late at night and leaving early
in the morning.

After a prudent analysis of the facts involved, we find the evidence is

sufficient to anchor probable cause to indict the respondents to the offense
charged.

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.

Given the foregoing, Totoy obviously cohabited with Baby as his

mistress. A scandal consist in any reprehensible word or deed that offends
public conscience, redounds to the detriment of the feelings of honest persons,
and gives occasions to the neighbors’ spiritual damage or ruin (People vs. Santos,
et al., 45 O.G. 2116).

The scandal produced by the concubinage of married man occurs not only
when (1) he and his mistress live in the same room of a house, but also when
(2) they appear together in public, and (3) performs acts in sight of the
community which give rise to criticism and general protest among the
neighbors. (p. 865, The Revised Penal Code by Reyes, 16th edition)

Complainant supplied one (1) address where respondents allegedly

cohabited more particularly Block 1 Lot 55 Brgy. Dolores, Capas, Tarlac,
Philippines from 2021 to present. The element of “scandalous circumstances”
was proven by the statement of the witnesse, Mr. Olate who is the barangay
captain of the said barangay, which according to him, that they appeared together
in public.

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 testimony of Mr. Olate proved that Totoy and baby dwell together as
husband and wife and substantiated the circumstances on how “cohabitation”
between the respondents existed at Block 1 Lot 55 Brgy. Dolores, Capas, Tarlac.
The fact that complainant discovered Baby residing at said address and
confirming to their neighbor that the present themselves as husband and wife is
sufficient to prove cohabitation within the meaning of law.

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 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. The constant visit of Totoy to Baby during the weekends
and his reason to his neighbors that he works in Angeles during the weekdays
while his wife waits for his return would equate to 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.

Lastly, the screenshot of totoy’s public facebook post of greeting her wife
 on their wedding anniversary convinced us that baby had knowledge that Totoy is
married.

After judicious consideration of the evidence presented by the complainant,

we found probable cause to hold respondent, Totoy Mola and Baby Girl, for trial
for violation of Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code.

We find that there is sufficient evidence presented by the complainant to

convince us to believe that indeed the respondents are probably guilty of the crime
of violation of Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully recommended

that Information for the crime of violation of Article 334 of the Revised Penal
Code against respondents, Totoy Mola and Baby Girl, be FILED in court.

Angeles City, July 25, 2022.

Atty. Luke D. Wandasan

Assistant City Prosecutor

APPROVED:

JASON ANTONIO AMANTE

City Prosecutor

cc:
parties concerned