CRIMINAL ASPECT

As the crime providing punishment for extramarital afairs committed by the husband,
Article 334 lends not obedience and prevention but rather tolerance and loopholes in
the guise of the three circumstances in which Concubinage can be committed.
First of the circumstances is keeping the mistress in the conjugal dwelling. Conjugal
dwelling is (People v. Cordova). A man with common sense would not ordinarily keep or
much less let his mistress in the conjugal dwelling in order to keep his afairs hidden
from his wife and family.
The second requisite is when the husband has sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances. By nature of his extramarital afair a man would make eforts to keep his
afair discreet. Indeed, the phrase scandalous circumstances is discriminatory and
almost difcult or impossible to prove. The phrase is also a vague and ambiguous
phrase which under the statutory construction should be construed in favour of the
accused. (Case) It also implies that a man having extramarital afairs is not wrong nor is
it a crime unless it either reaches a status of being under a scandalous circumstance
whereas a woman does not deserve any circumstance for her extramarital afair to be
adultery. Scandalous circumstance also rests upon the people or neighbours who will
judge whether their sensibilities where their sensibilities are ofended with the married
man and his mistress sexual relations to render it scandalous. Concubinage is under
Title 11 of Book 2 of Revised Penal Code which classifes it under Crimes of Chastity
therefore is it not enough that the sexual intercourse is repugnant in the eyes of the
mans wife, a deflement of the mans sacred vow of marriage and a desecration of the
his and his familys reputation in addition to the besmirching of the character of the lady
he made his mistress. This is the only Article under the Crimes Against Chastity where
an element requires other people aside from the ofended person to prove that indeed
the crime is committed. If thats the case then there really is indeed a need to amend the
Revised Penal Code and transfer the crime Concubinage to Crimes Against Person for it
is apparently not a crime against the chastity of marriage but a crime against the
sensibilities of other people who may be named as third party.
The third act by which a husband can commit Concubinage is by cohabiting with a
woman in another place. Cohabitation means to dwell together, in a manner as a
husband and wife (People v. Pitoc) for some period of time which is diferent from that of
occasional, transient interviews for unlawful intercourse. (Reyes, p.912) This opens an
avenue for a man to have sexual relations with a woman not his wife from time to time
without being charged with Concubinage provided he does not stay with her for long
period of time. Instead of absolutely preventing the commission of extramarital afairs by
the husband, the article ensured that a marries man can freely have sexual relations
intermittently with a mistress woman without a consequence.
The needless inclusion of these three acts makes Concubinage an inefective and
essentially impotent article.
The substantive criminal law is the law which for the purpose of preventing harm to
society, (a) declares what conduct is criminal, and (b) prescribes the punishment to be
imposed for such conduct. (Blacks Law Dictionary. Fifth Ed., p. 337)