In the Philippines, the crime of concubinage, as defined under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, involves a husband engaging in specific acts of infidelity. This case clarifies that a wife’s knowledge of her husband’s general womanizing does not automatically constitute condonation of concubinage. The Supreme Court emphasizes that condonation requires explicit knowledge and acceptance of the specific acts constituting concubinage, such as keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s decision to investigate and prosecute crimes involving public officers, even those not directly related to their official duties, falls within its discretionary authority, reinforcing the breadth of its mandate in ensuring accountability.

When Mistress Meets Matrimony: Questioning the Limits of a Wife’s Forgiveness

The case of Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego v. Office of the Ombudsman revolves around a complaint filed by Rosa S. Busuego against her husband, Alfredo, for concubinage, violation of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children), and grave threats. Rosa painted a picture of a marriage marred by infidelity, neglect, and threats. She alleged that Alfredo had maintained relationships with other women, including Emy Sia and Julie de Leon, even allowing them to reside in their conjugal home. The central legal question is whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to indict Alfredo for concubinage, considering Rosa’s prior knowledge of his infidelity and her alleged condonation of his actions. Additionally, the case examines the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate crimes committed by public officials, irrespective of whether those crimes are related to their official duties.

Alfredo denied all accusations, claiming that Rosa’s allegations were fabricated to support a legal separation case. He argued that it was improbable for him to commit concubinage, given his demanding work schedule as Chief of Hospital. He further contended that Rosa’s continued visits to Davao City, despite knowing about his alleged affairs, constituted condonation. Moreover, Alfredo raised procedural objections, asserting that Rosa’s failure to initially implead Sia and de Leon as respondents was a fatal flaw in her complaint. He also argued that the case should have been referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ), as concubinage was not committed in relation to his public office.

The Ombudsman, however, found probable cause to indict Alfredo and Sia for concubinage, directing the filing of an Information against them in the appropriate court. This decision was based on the testimonies of Rosa, their son Robert, and two house helpers, Melissa S. Diambangan and Liza S. Diambangan, which corroborated the allegations of Alfredo keeping Sia in the conjugal dwelling. Alfredo sought to annul the Ombudsman’s Resolution and Order, alleging grave abuse of discretion. He argued that the Ombudsman had improperly included Sia and de Leon as respondents, failed to refer the complaint to the DOJ, overlooked Rosa’s condonation, and disregarded Liza Diambangan’s affidavit of recantation.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, upheld the Ombudsman’s findings, emphasizing the broad discretionary authority vested in the Ombudsman to determine probable cause during a preliminary investigation. The Court reiterated that judicial review of the Ombudsman’s resolutions is limited to cases of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found no such abuse in this case.

Regarding Alfredo’s procedural arguments, the Court held that the Ombudsman had acted within its authority in facilitating the amendment of Rosa’s complaint to include Sia and de Leon as respondents. The Court reasoned that dismissing the complaint on procedural grounds would be a superfluous act, as amendment is permissible under the Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Court. The Court highlighted that the Ombudsman merely cured a defect in the complaint, ensuring that all parties were properly before the court.

Addressing Alfredo’s jurisdictional challenge, the Court reaffirmed the Ombudsman’s concurrent jurisdiction with the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigations of crimes involving public officers, regardless of whether those crimes are related to their official duties. Citing Sen. Honasan II v. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of DOJ, the Court emphasized that the Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and may take over investigations from other government agencies at any stage. Thus, the Ombudsman was not obligated to refer Rosa’s complaint to the DOJ, even though concubinage is not directly related to Alfredo’s position as Chief of Hospital.

The Court also rejected Alfredo’s claim of condonation, holding that Rosa’s general knowledge of his infidelity did not constitute condonation of the specific acts of concubinage alleged in the complaint. The Court emphasized that condonation requires explicit knowledge and acceptance of the particular acts constituting concubinage, such as keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling. Rosa’s admission that she believed Alfredo had stopped womanizing did not amount to condonation, as it did not demonstrate acquiescence to his specific relations with Sia and de Leon. The Court cited People v. Francisco, stating that patience with a husband’s shortcomings due to promises of improvement does not equate to consent to his immorality or acquiescence in his relations with a concubine.

Furthermore, the Court dismissed Alfredo’s reliance on Liza Diambangan’s affidavit of recantation, noting that such affidavits are generally viewed with disfavor and deserve scant consideration. The Court cited Firaza v. People, emphasizing that a witness’s recantation does not automatically render their previous testimony false. Liza Diambangan’s testimony merely corroborated the accounts of Robert and Melissa Diambangan, which still provided a basis for the Ombudsman’s finding of probable cause. The Court held that the consistent stories of Robert and Melissa could still be the basis of the Ombudsman’s finding of a prima facie case of concubinage against Alfredo and Sia.

Finally, the Court addressed Alfredo’s argument that there was no basis for indicting him and Sia for concubinage. The Court pointed to Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, which lists three specific acts of concubinage by a husband: keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife; and cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any other place. The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding of a prima facie case based on the testimonies that Alfredo had kept Sia in the conjugal dwelling, where she even stayed in the conjugal room. The Court emphasized that the presence of Sia at the Busuego household and her interim residence thereat was not disputed nor explained. While Alfredo claimed that Sia may have stayed in the conjugal dwelling, but never as his mistress, and supposedly slept in the maids’ quarters, the Court deemed this a matter of defense to be raised in court.

FAQs

What is concubinage under Philippine law?	Concubinage, as defined in Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by a husband who keeps a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, has sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife, or cohabits with her elsewhere.
What does it mean to condone concubinage?	Condonation, in the context of concubinage, means forgiving or overlooking the act. Legally, it implies that the offended spouse has knowledge of the act and, through words or actions, implies acceptance or forgiveness of the offense.
Does a wife’s knowledge of her husband’s infidelity automatically mean she has condoned his concubinage?	No, mere knowledge of infidelity does not automatically equate to condonation. Condonation requires explicit knowledge and acceptance of the specific acts constituting concubinage, such as keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling or engaging in scandalous sexual intercourse.
What is the role of the Ombudsman in investigating crimes involving public officials?	The Ombudsman has the authority to investigate and prosecute crimes involving public officials, whether or not those crimes are related to their official duties. This authority is concurrent with other government investigating agencies, such as the Department of Justice.
Can the Ombudsman investigate a public official for a crime like concubinage, which is not directly related to their job?	Yes, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction extends to crimes committed by public officials, regardless of whether they are related to their official duties. This broad authority ensures accountability among public servants.
What is an affidavit of recantation, and how is it viewed by the courts?	An affidavit of recantation is a statement in which a witness retracts a previous testimony. Courts generally view such affidavits with skepticism and disfavor, as they are often considered unreliable.
What constitutes a prima facie case?	A prima facie case exists when there is sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable possibility that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty. It’s a preliminary determination that justifies further legal proceedings.
What are the possible defenses against a charge of concubinage?	Possible defenses against a charge of concubinage include lack of knowledge of the affair, lack of intent, proof that the accused did not commit the acts alleged, or evidence that the offended spouse condoned the acts.

This case underscores the complexities of marital relationships and the legal boundaries that define acceptable conduct. While knowledge of infidelity may strain a marriage, it does not automatically excuse specific acts of concubinage. The Ombudsman’s broad authority to investigate public officials, even for personal transgressions, reinforces the importance of accountability and ethical behavior in public service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego, vs. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) [and] Rosa S. Busuego, G.R. No. 196842, October 09, 2013