DOJ FILES CONCUBINAGE CHARGE: EVIDENCE OF HUSBAND AND MISTRESS CONJUGAL PROPERTIES

24 November 2009

The Department ordered today the filing of a criminal complaint against a husband and his concubine based on the deeds of properties where they described themselves as �spouses.�

In a resolution dated 21 October 2009, Undersecretary Linda Hornilla reversed and set aside the earlier decision of the San Pablo City Prosecutor�s Office dismissing the complaint filed by Elsa Magat against her husband Rodolfo and his mistress Liwayway Malinay for insufficiency of the evidence as she presented mere photocopies of documents to prove her husband�s concubinage.

�The fact that the complainant only submitted photocopies of the documents proving co-ownership of respondents of real properties should not have deterred the City Prosecutor of San Pablo City from finding probable cause against them, since the presentation of the originals of these documents may be done during the actual trial of the case,� Hornilla stressed.

The complaint against Elsa�s husband and his mistress was for concubinage and violation of R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and their Children) for causing mental and emotional anguish, public ridicule and humiliation of the complainant and her children.

To prove her claim that the respondents committed the offense of cohabitation, the complainant presented two documents: (1) photocopy of a Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) that showed the property under the name of the respondents who were described as �spouses,� and (2) a photocopy of a deed of sale showing respondents as vendees of a piece of land.

The resolution said that �being named as spouses in a transfer certificate is enough to establish probable cause.�

Complainant alleged that she got married to respondent Magat on March 29, 1970 at San Pablo City, Laguna until he left for the US in 1988 due to marital problems. Accordingly, he came back to the Philippines in 2006 and instead of going home to their conjugal house, respondent Magat went with respondent Malinay to the latter�s house, where according to a witness, they lived as husband and wife.

Both respondents deny the allegations saying that there was no cohabitation between them and the complainant only filed the charges to extort money from them.
 

More News Articles

We are ISO Certified