The Supreme Court has acquitted Norlie S. Silvania and May Ann Callejo of concubinage, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reversed the conviction that had been affirmed by the lower courts, holding that the circumstantial evidence did not establish that the two were cohabiting as understood in the law on concubinage.
The Case
An Information was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, charging Norlie S. Silvania and May Ann Callejo with concubinage, defined and penalized under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Jenalyn Silvania and Melinda S. Repolio. Jenalyn testified that she married Norlie on April 18, 2012, as evidenced by a Certificate of Marriage, and that their marriage bore them a son. She said their relationship changed after Norlie was elected as the top barangay kagawad of Dardarat, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. She claimed Norlie began arriving home late, left the family home in March 2015, and allegedly started an affair with May Ann, the barangay secretary.
Jenalyn alleged Norlie returned home in July 2015 but remained distant, and that he finally abandoned her and their son in September 2015. She said Norlie lived in May Ann's house in Dardarat, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, and that the two flaunted their relationship on social media. She also testified she would see Norlie at May Ann's house during lunch time and at nighttime, between 8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Melinda testified she knew the parties as residents of the same barangay and that she saw Norlie at May Ann's farm and house on various occasions. The defense presented Norlie and his brother, Narlo Silvania. Narlo said Norlie had stayed in their family home since leaving Jenalyn's house. Norlie admitted his marriage to Jenalyn and that his relationship with May Ann led to her pregnancy, but argued there was nothing scandalous about having a child with May Ann.
In a Judgment dated December 5, 2018, the MTC found Norlie and May Ann guilty of concubinage. Norlie was sentenced to imprisonment of four months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three years of prision correccional, as maximum; May Ann was sentenced to destierro for a period of eight months. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), in a Decision dated May 30, 2019, affirmed the MTC ruling in toto. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated March 14, 2023 and Resolution dated December 13, 2023 in CA-G.R. CR No. 44164, upheld the conviction.
The Issue
The Court examined whether the evidence presented by the prosecution formed an unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion showing that (a) Norlie was cohabiting with May Ann; and (b) May Ann had knowledge that Norlie is married. The first element — that the man must be married — was undisputed by both the prosecution and the defense.
The Ruling
The Court ruled: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 14, 2023 and Resolution dated December 13, 2023 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 44164 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioners Norlie S. Silvania and May Ann Callejo are ACQUITTED of the crime of concubinage for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
The Court further ordered that entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 271594
- Marriage of Jenalyn and Norlie: April 18, 2012
- Norlie allegedly left the family home: March 2015
- Alleged abandonment: September 2015
- MTC Judgment: December 5, 2018
- RTC Decision: May 30, 2019
- Court of Appeals Decision: March 14, 2023; Resolution: December 13, 2023
- Norlie's penalty imposed by the MTC: four months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three years of prision correccional, as maximum
- May Ann's penalty imposed by the MTC: destierro for a period of eight months
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, there must be more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived must be proven, and the combination of all the circumstances must produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused as the guilty person.
Citing Ocampo v. People, the Court defined cohabitation in the context of concubinage as the act of dwelling together in the manner of husband and wife, for some period of time, as distinguished from occasional, transient interviews for unlawful intercourse.
The Court found that the circumstances cited by the lower courts — that the two were seen together in May Ann's house more than five times, that Norlie was seen going to May Ann's house at night, Norlie's lack of empathy for Jenalyn, his declaration of love for May Ann and having a son in open court, and the existence of social media posts — did not amount to cohabitation as understood in concubinage. The Court noted that being seen at May Ann's house does not necessarily create an inference that Norlie dwells with her as husband and wife, and that having a child together does not require Norlie to live with May Ann, especially since the defense presented testimony that May Ann and the child would instead visit Norlie at his house.
Because the prosecution failed to prove the existence of cohabitation, the Court held that Norlie's acquittal was warranted, and that May Ann should also be acquitted because Norlie was not found to have committed any of the other enumerated acts under Article 334.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 271594, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.