Imprisonment for infidelity

Just because the wife was not bodily present to witness the unfaithfulness of her husband, it does not negate the emotional pain and anguish his infidelity caused her

Lots of times I have been consulted by male friends and clients. They ask if a husband can be imprisoned for having a mistress.

Here is how I answer it. Basically, under our Revised Penal Code, there are two marital crimes — concubinage and adultery. If it is for the act alone of having a mistress, the husband cannot be held for concubinage. Liability, however, attaches if the husband keeps the mistress in the conjugal dwelling. Or he abandons his family and lives with his mistress, where they purport to be husband and wife. Adultery, on the other hand, is committed by a married woman. If a husband’s mistress is herself married, the latter’s husband can file adultery against them, with the former as the paramour. Note that the law penalizes the very acts themselves.

After discussing, I quickly add that besides those, a husband can still be held criminally liable for his philandering. This time though, what is penalized is not the act itself of being unfaithful, but its deleterious effects on the wife. And I emphasize that the sanction is doing time behind bars. More often than not, the persons I discuss this with, ask if that really happens. They probe if there are real cases of actual persons being held criminally liable by our courts. They smirk and not believe in its possibility in our present-day society.

If you also think a conviction is not a possibility, let me discuss with you the case of XXX versus People of the Philippines, GR 241390, promulgated on 13 January 2021. The party’s name is intentionally changed to XXX by the Supreme Court in accordance with SC Administrative Circular 83-2015. This is to protect the privacy and dignity of victims, including their relatives… (b)y replacing, with Fictitious Initials, the complete names… in the decisions .... ” (Section III.1).

In the case above cited, the husband maintained a mistress. He drove away his family from the conjugal home and let his mistress stay instead. The wife had to stay in her mother’s house. Eventually, she filed a case for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of Republic Act (RA) 9262 (Violence Against Women and Their Children Act). The trial court convicted the husband. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. When the case reached the Supreme Court, it had this to say.

“(P)etitioner was charged and convicted with the crime of violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262. Petitioner insists on his innocence and asserts that the prosecution was not able to establish the elements of psychological violence... Section 5(i) of RA 9262 penalizes some forms of psychological violence inflicted against women and their children... While petitioner sorely attempts to downplay the effect of his marital infidelity, the pain and suffering of his wife is without a doubt real and raw and far from being imaginary. Just because the wife was not bodily present to witness the unfaithfulness of her husband, it does not negate the emotional pain and anguish his infidelity caused her. Worthy to mention also is the observation of the CA that Barangays xxx and xxx are proximately close and are situated within the town of xxx. Indeed, gossip easily spreads in small towns like xxx. All the more when the hot issue is about a husband bringing his mistress into the family home to live with his children. In this case, the mental anguish suffered by the wife is compounded by public ridicule and humiliation… Prescinding from the foregoing, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner committed psychological violence, through marital infidelity, which caused mental anguish and emotional suffering on his wife .... ”

If it is for the act alone of having a mistress, the husband cannot be held for concubinage. Liability, however, attaches if the husband keeps the mistress in the conjugal dwelling.

The Supreme Court proceeds to affirm his conviction modifying his imprisonment to six to eight years.

So, there you have it folks. The case is a solid testament to a conviction. I guess I need not do any further convincing if anyone asks.

(All facts and court pronouncement cited above are from the case mentioned.)