Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Marikina City
LOLITA CHIONG-ESTEPA,
Complainant,
-versus-

I.S. NO. 07-2316

FOR: CONCUBINAGE

BERNARDO PATACSIL ESTEPA

and VIOLETA ABLOG RAMOS.
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
This is a complaint for the crime of Concubinage defined under Article 334
of the Revised Penal Code filed against Bernardo Patacsil Estepa and Violeta
Ablog Ramos.
Complainant alleged that she is married to Bernardo P. Estepa (Bernardo
for brevity) on January 25, 1989 him whom she begot three (3) children namely:
Christi Minerva, Leah Bernadette and Esther Katrina. On December 2001,
complainant discovered of her husbands illicit affair when their daughter Christi
happened to read a message over her fathers cellular phone stating HONEY
WE LOVE YOU VERY MUCH. This was followed by a text message YOUR FATHER
IS WITH HIS OTHER FAMILY received by their children in April 2002. It was
discovered that these messages were sent by respondent Violeta Ablog Ramos
(Violeta for brevity). Said illicit relationship was admitted by Violeta on March
18, 2003 when she and complainant had a serious talk inside the latters office at
St. Camillus College Seminary where shes working as guidance counselor.
Violeta likewise confessed that she and Bernardo had been living together and
had already begot two children, however, this was denied by Bernardo when
confronted.
Later, complainant discovered that respondents were cohabiting at No. 6
St. Luke St., Tierra Vista Heights, Marikina City from 2002 to 2004. There were
indeed instances when their relationship was confirmed when Christi chanced
upon them in Ali Mall, Cubao, Quezon City and when Bernadette went to
Teachers Village, Quezon City respondents were then cohabiting with each
other. In support of this complaint, Lolita submitted the following, to wit:
1. Sworn Statements her daughters Christi Minerva and Leah
Bernadette;
2. Photograph of respondents with their two children;
3. Identification Card of Bernardo bearing the name of Violeta as
the person to be informed/called in case of emergency;
4. Certificate of Live Birth of Bernardo Estepa, Jr.,
5. Barangay Certificate stating that both respondents has been
residing at No. 8-1 Matimtiman St., from April 2004 to May 2005.
Respondent Violeta A. Ramos denied cohabiting/cohabited with
Bernardo. She alleged that the above-entitled case is a leverage suit against her
in response to the Physical Injury case filed against Lolita and still pending before
the Metropolitan Trial
------------------

resolution
i.s. no. 07-2316
page 2
---------------Court in Quezon City to which Violeta refused to settle. In fact, it was the
complainant who harassed and uttered libelous remarks against her when the
former went to her office. In fact, complainant has no right to file this case
considering that she herself is a concubine for she married Bernardo at the time
when he is still married to
another woman (Annex 3 of the Counter-Affidavit). Violeta further denied having
sent any text message above-quoted neither did she admit to complainant that
she is cohabiting with Bernardo. Likewise, there is no truth that she and Bernardo
were caught in a mall in Quezon City and all the evidence presented including
the picture attached to the complaint are all fabricated.
In her reply, complainant maintained the allegation stated in the
complaint. She belied Violetas claim on the settlement of the case filed against
her in Quezon City. Attached thereto is a copy of her counter-affidavit filed in
that case wherein Violeta admitted that she was a concubine of Bernardo. Her
living-in with Bernardo ended at the very day that Violeta came to their house on
March 18, 2003. Lolita likewise submitted a Certificate of No Marriage from the
National Census Office indicating that she is the only registered wife of Bernardo
despite her knowledge of the latters marriage to one Edelmira G. Suavillo. She
brought the matter to the NBI for possibility of filing cases for Bigamy and
Concubinage but opted to file it directly here in Marikina after she felt partiality
on said agency. In fact, this problem affected her daughter Esther Katrina who
suffered nervous breakdown after losing her father. An administrative case was
filed against Violeta but still pending before the DIDM Legal Board. Lastly,
complainant submitted the names of her witnesses who witnessed the illicit
relationship of respondents, namely: Tessie Tanchoco, Mar Periabras, Carlos
Roberto, Noel Lee, John Saret, Barangay Captain Federico Jong, and personnel
from the PNP Directorate for Comptrollership.
Respondent Bernardo Patacsil Estepa, on the other hand, failed to submit
his counter-affidavit despite subpoena sent by this office.
After a prudent analysis of the facts involved, we find the evidence not
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, Bernardo obviously did not keep Violeta as his mistress
in the conjugal dwelling. So much so that the complainant failed to concretized
----------------

resolution
i.s. no. 07-2316
page 3
----------------that Bernardo was having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstance with
Violeta under the second way of committing Concubinage.
Anent to that, 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 two (2) addresses where respondents allegedly
cohabited more particularly a) No. 6 St. Luke St., Tierra Vista Heights, Marikina City
from 2002 to 2004 and b) No. 8-1 Matimtiman St., Barangay Teachers West,
Diliman, Quezon City from April 2004 to May 2005. However, this failed to prove
the element of scandalous circumstances for no statement of witnesses,
particularly those living within the vicinity/community, was submitted before this
Office to prove that they indeed witnessed respondents living in the above-given
addresses, that they appeared together in public, and they performed acts that
would be a subject of criticism and general protest in the neighborhood. The
least complainant did was to submit the names of her witnesses and the affidavits
of her daughters who failed to appear during the preliminary investigation to
reaffirm their statements given before a notary public as far as the year 2005.
As held, if none of the acts of the defendants were proved by the
testimony of the people from the vicinity, there is no scandal. The testimony of the
offended wife that in the a house she saw her husband and the other woman
lying side by side and on several occasions she saw them going together to
different places, is not sufficient to convict them for concubinage (U.S. vs.
Casipong, et al., 20 Phil. 178, p. 866, The Revised Penal Code by Reyes, 16th
edition).
Lastly, the following evidence submitted failed to convince us that
cohabitation existed, to wit:
a. Complainant discovery that
Bernardo was cohabiting with
Violeta at No. 6 St. Luke St., Tierra Vista Heights, Marikina City from
2002 to 2004 sans any explanation on how it came to her
knowledge (par. 7 of the Complaint);
b. Christi Minerva discovered her father in Ali Mall with respondent who
was then pregnant (par. 8 and 9 of the Complaint);
c. Lea Grace discovery of an address from a piece of paper inside
Bernardos car purportedly that of No. 8-1 Matimtiman St., Barangay
Teachers West, Diliman, Quezon City to which she saw a plump woman
wearing shorts and discovered her fathers car outside said house (par.
10 and 11 of the Complaint);
-----------------

resolution
i.s. no. 07-2316
page 4
---------------d. Complainants statement that she went to the address and saw two
children playing with a teenager to which when she asked the latter if it
is the residence of the Estepas he answered in the affirmative but
complainant immediately left the place (par. 12 of the Complaint)
e. Photograph of respondents with their two children;
f. Identification Card of Bernardo bearing the name of Violeta as
the person to be informed/called in case of emergency;
g. Certificate of Live Birth of Bernardo Estepa, Jr.,
h. Barangay Certificate stating that both respondents has been residing at
No. 8-1 Matimtiman St., from April 2004 to May 2005 sans the supporting
statement of neighbors to prove that respondents are indeed
cohabiting and represented themselves as husband and wife in said
community.
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 foregoing documents and allegations failed to prove that Bernardo
and Violeta dwell together as husband and wife neither did it provide any
evidence to substantiate the circumstances on how cohabitation between the
respondents existed at No. 6 St. Luke St., Tierra Vista Heights, Marikina City. The
fact that complainant discovered Violeta and her children residing at said
address and that she bore a child to Bernardo is not sufficient to prove
cohabitation within the meaning of law. Needless to say, there was no statement
to the fact that a witness saw the person of Bernardo at said address and/or that
he was residing thereat.
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, of course, means more than sexual intercourse, especially when
one of the parties is already old and may no longer be interested in sex. At the
very least, 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. Secret meetings or nights clandestinely
spent together, even if often repeated, do not constitute such kind of
cohabitation; they are merely meretricious.
Notably, complainant herself admitted to be Bernardos concubine for the
latter is still married to one Edelmira G. Suavillo when they contracted their
marriage. This has been vocally stated in her Sworn Statement submitted in the
Physical Injury case filed in Quezon City (please see Annex 1-C of Rejoinder.
Hence, violating the time tested principle that HE WHO COMES TO COURT MUST
COME IN CLEAN HANDS.
--------------

resolution
i.s. no. 07-2316
page 5
---------------

WHEREFORE, there being no evidence to anchor probable cause, the case

is recommended for DISMISSAL.
Marikina City, March 25, 2008.

RICARDO T. PAET, JR.,

Assistant City Prosecutor
APPROVED:
JASON ANTONIO AMANTE
City Prosecutor

cc:
Lolita Chiong-Estepa
Lot 12, Block 16, Mayon St.,
Hacienda Heights Village,
Concepcion Dos, Marikina City

Bernardo Patacsil Estepa

c/o Mrs. Lydia E. Lazaro
Lot 7, Block 17, Samat St.,
Concepcion Dos, Marikina City
Violeta Ablog Ramos
Office of the Directorate Comptrollership
PNP Headquarters, Camp Crame,
Quezon City

/ajtc 03-25-08