You are on page 1of 2

People v.

Subject: Legal separation; condonation by the innocent spouse; double jeopardy
In March 1926, the accused Rodolfo A !chnec"enburger #arried the co#pliant $lena Ra#ire%
&artagena and after se'en years of #artial life, they agreed, for reason of alleged inco#patibility of character,
to li'e separately each other
()oth appearing to li'e con'enientlt separated fro# each other for the rest of their li'es and co##it and
bind the#sel'es not to bother or interfere or #i* under any concept in their public or pri'ate li'es, each
granting ea'e of gi'ing co#plete freedo# of action in any e'ent and in e'ery respect+, ,hich pretty #uch
#eans they are separating already+
In -une 19./, the accused !chnec"enburger, ,ithout lea'ing the 0hilippines, secured a decree of
di'orce fro# the ci'il court in the !tate of &hihuahua, Me*ico In May 19.6, he contracted another #arriage
,ith his co1accused, -ulia Medel, in the justice of the peace court of Malabon, Ri%al, and since then they li'ed
together as husband and ,ife in the city of Manila
)ecause of the nullity of the di'orce decreed by the Me*ico &ourt, co#plainant instituted t,o actions
against the accused, one for biga#y and the other for concubinage 2he first cul#inated in the con'iction of
the accused 3hereas on the trial for the offense of concubinage, accused interposed the plea of double
jeopardy, and the case ,as dis#issed 4o,e'er, upon appeal, the accused ,as con'icted of concubinage
through rec"less i#prudence
ISSUES: would concubinage case filed at the same time with bigam case !and based on the same act"
constitute docuble jeopard#
Should mr. schneckenberg be convicted for concubinage#
%& 'ouble (eopard
). 2he celebration of the second #arriage, ,ith the first still e*isting, characteri%es the cri#e of biga#y
5n the other hand, in the present case, #ere cohabitation by the husband ,ith a ,o#an ,ho is not his
,ife characteri%es the cri#e of concubinage
*. 2he first in an offense against ci'il status ,hich #ay be prosecuted at the instance of the state; the
second, an offense against chastity and #ay be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party
+. 5n the #atter of double jeopardy, the test is not ,hether the defendant has already been tried for the
sa#e act, but ,hether he has been put in jeopardy for the sa#e offense
,. !ince double jeopardy only applies ,hen the person is being tried for the sa#e offense, his clai# to
dis#iss the concubinage case in this #anner ,ould ha'e to be denied
%& -&%-U.I%/0E
1. 2he accused should be ac6uitted of the cri#e of concubinage 2he docu#ent e*ecuted by and
bet,een the accused and the co#plaint in ,hich they agreed to be "en completa libertad de accion en
cualquier acto y en todos conceptos,7 ,hile illegal for the purpose for ,hich it ,as e*ecuted, constitutes
ne'ertheless a 'alid consent to the act of concubinage 2here can be no doubt that by such agree#ent,
each party clearly intended to forego to illicit acts of the other
2. 2he second paragraph of article .88 of the Re'ised 0enal &ode pro'ides that (the offended party
cannot institute cri#inal prosecution ,ithout including both the guilty parties, if they are both ali'e, nor,
in any case, if he shall ha'e consented or pardoned the offenders
3. In arri'ing at this conclusion, it shall not be #isconstrued as legali%ing an agree#ent to do an illicit act,
in 'iolation of la, 5ur 'ie, #ust be ta"en only to #ean that an agree#ent of the tenor entered into
bet,een the parties herein, operates, ,ithin the plain language and #anifest policy of the la,, to bar
the offended party fro# prosecuting the offense
-onsent4 given before the act4 and pardon4 given after the act4 both work as a defense for the crime of