Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People Vs Schneckenburger A

    Uploaded by

    Joyce
    195 views1 page
    This case involves a man, Roberto, who was convicted of both bigamy and concubinage for marrying a second woman while still married to his first wife. The court held that Roberto should be acquitted of concubinage because he and his first wife had executed a document agreeing to live separately and not interfere in each other's lives, which constituted valid consent to his act of concubinage under Article 344 of the RPC, even if the document was invalid for the purpose it was executed. Prior consent bars prosecution of an offense, just as subsequent consent or pardon would. Roberto's conviction of concubinage was therefore reversed and he was acquitted.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    People vs Schneckenburger A

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a man, Roberto, who was convicted of both bigamy and concubinage for marrying a second woman while still married to his first wife. The court held that Roberto should be acquitted of concubinage because he and his first wife had executed a document agreeing to live separately and not interfere in each other's lives, which constituted valid consent to his act of concubinage under Article 344 of the RPC, even if the document was invalid for the purpose it was executed. Prior consent bars prosecution of an offense, just as subsequent consent or pardon would. Roberto's conviction of concubinage was therefore reversed and he was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    195 views1 page

    People Vs Schneckenburger A

    Uploaded by

    Joyce
    This case involves a man, Roberto, who was convicted of both bigamy and concubinage for marrying a second woman while still married to his first wife. The court held that Roberto should be acquitted of concubinage because he and his first wife had executed a document agreeing to live separately and not interfere in each other's lives, which constituted valid consent to his act of concubinage under Article 344 of the RPC, even if the document was invalid for the purpose it was executed. Prior consent bars prosecution of an offense, just as subsequent consent or pardon would. Roberto's conviction of concubinage was therefore reversed and he was acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    People vs.

    Schneckenburger (GR L-48143)


    Date Promulgated: November 10, 1941
    Petitioner: The People of the Philippines
    Respondent: Rodolfo A. Schneckenburger. et al.
    Ponente: Moran, J.

    Stated in the Case: Article 344 of the RPC
    The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any
    case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.

    Current Topic: Article 56 (2)
    The petition for legal separation shall be denied on any of the following grounds:
    .
    (2) Where the aggrieved party has consented to the commission of the offense or act
    complained of.

    Facts of the Case:
    1. Roberto married Elena Ramirez Cartagena on March 16, 1926 but after 7 years they agreed to live separately. They then
    executed a document which states that they agree to live apart from each other for the rest of their lives and will not
    intervene, under any circumstances, in each others public or private life (something to that effect fr google translate)
    2. June 15, 1935: Roberto secures a decree of divorce from the civil court in Chihuahua, Mexico without ever leaving the
    Philippines. (Not valid)
    3. May 11, 1936: Roberto marries Julia Medel in Malabon
    4. 2 actions were filed against Roberto
    a. Bigamy (court of First Instance in Rizal) convicted, penalty: 2 mos and one day of arresto mayor
    b. Concubinage (court of First Instance in Manila) Accused posed a plea of double jeopardy and the case was
    dismissed.

    The Fiscal appealed and the Court held the dismissal to be premature.

    The case was then remanded to the trial court. He was finally convicted and sentenced to two months and one day
    of arresto mayor. Hence, this appeal.

    Issues/ Held:
    1. W/N judgment of the court of first instance in Manila was valid, and that the respondent is guilty of concubinage?

    Court: No, Roberto should be acquitted of the crime of concubinage.

    The document executed by the accused and his first wife, in which they agreed to complete liberty of action, while illegal for
    the purpose it was executed, constitutes a VALID CONSENT to the act of concubinage.

    Under Art 344 of the RPC: The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty
    parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. (Pardon refers to
    offense AFTER its commission, while consent must have been intended to refer to the offense PRIOR to its commission)

    Prior consent is as effective as subsequent consent to bar the offended party from prosecuting the offense.


    Court Decision:
    Judgment is reversed and the accused is acquitted.

    Buzz words:
    Consent, Concubinage, Article 56

    You might also like