EMILIANO CASTRO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner, Emiliano Castro y
Villanueva – hereinafter referred to as appellant – seeks the review on
certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming that of the Court
of First Instance of Manila, convicting him of the crime of concu­binage,
with which he is charged, upon complaint filed by his wife, Flordeliza
T. Castro, and sentencing him to an indeter­minate penalty ranging from three
(3) months and eleven (11) days of arresto mayor
to one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional,
and to pay the costs.  Not having been
apprehended, his co-defendant, Lolita Flojo y Balicanta has not, as yet, been tried.

The Court of Appeals found that, although legally married to the
complainant on February 9, 1952 – who was separated from him since 1954 – and
their marriage had not been dissolved, appellant had, from about 1956 to 1959,
cohabited and had sexual intercourse with his co-defendant, who lived with him,
in his house – which used to be his and complainant’s matrimonial do­micile at
1321-A P. Guevara St., Manila, openly as his wife, as well as presented herself
and was presented by appellant as such.

These facts were established by complainant’s testimony and that
of her sister Sylvia Tanjuan, who were fully corrobo­rated
by the birth certificate (Exh. B) and
the SSS form (Exh. E) of
appellant’s co-defendant.  Indeed,
Exhibit B, which is signed by the latter as Lolita Flojo
Castro, shows that on October
7, 1957, she gave birth, at the Far
Eastern University
Hospital, to a child named
Alejandro Flojo Castro, who, she
declared, was her “legitimate” son and that of Emiliano
Villanueva Castro, appellant herein.  At
the foot of her signature, she wrote “1321 P. Guevara, Santa
Cruz, Manila,”
which is appellant’s address, as her own. 
Upon the other hand, in her SSS form, she used the same name and address
– although it was more specific, by add­ing the suffix A to the house number –
and, apart from naming appellant as her beneficiary, she described him as her
“husband“, and her mother, Angeles Vda. de Flojo,
as her dependent.

Appellant denied, on the witness stand, having had illicit
relations with his co-defendant; but, it is clear that his testimony can not
prevail over the aforementioned evidence for the prose­cution, aside from the
circumstance that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive
upon us under a petition for review on certiorari, such as the one at bar.  Indeed, the issues raised by appellant herein
are basically factual, in view of which said petition should not have been
given due course.  Since, however we have
already examined the record, we are satisfied that said issues are devoid of
merit.

Thus, appellant maintains, as he did in the trial court and in
the Court of Appeals, that there had been condonation
or pardon on the part of his wife; but, neither court sustained this
pretense.  What is more, the conclusions
of the Court of Appeals thereon constitute another finding of fact, which is
not reviewable by us. 
Independently of the foregoing, although one letter of the complain­ant
in 1956 – when she seemingly had mere hearsay notion of the illicit relations
between the defendants herein – may not be clear on her position in relation
thereto, her letters in 1957 – in which she referred to Lolita Flojo as appellant’s “querida”
or mistress – and, particularly, her behaviour since
1958, when she became positive about said relations, leave no room for doubt
that she had never consented, pardoned or condoned the same.  In fact, on May 5, 1959, she even filed a
civil action – civil case No. 1957 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan – against her husband, for legal separation, based
upon the illicit relations between the here­in defendants.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
appellant, Emiliano Castro y Villanueva.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.