in Dating and Relationships

One thing Wally Bayola made me realize about sex videos

Last month I wrote about 5 things once can learn from watching a sex video.

Well here’s one other thing I remembered, thanks to Wally Bayola and this article. Wally Bayola, who is married with kids, may be considered guilty of concubinage.

From the Revised Penal Code, article 334:

Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods

Apparently, even Yoshika ‘Yosh’ Rivera can be hauled to prison:

The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro

Both carry maximum sentences of six years in prison.

So I guess, the moral of the story is pretty obvious: if you are married, don’t make a sex video with someone other than your wife!

Thanks for rating this! Now tell the world how you feel - .
How does this post make you feel?
  • Excited
  • Fascinated
  • Amused
  • Bored
  • Sad
  • Angry

Facebook Comments

Leave a Reply

  1. Hmm…from what I understand, the concubine shall only suffer destierro, which is defined in Article 87 as such:

    ARTICLE 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.

    As I’ve understood article 334, it’s only the man who will suffer imprisonment, but (in the next paragraphh) the concubine will not (but she will only suffer the penalty of keeping out from a designated place [away from the man?]).

  2. Destierro is not imprisonment. =This means that the culprit shall be banished from his present residence (not imprisoned) for a period of time

  3. Thanks for the comments, guys.

    I lifted the info from Article 27, which states:

    “Prisión correccional, suspensión, and destierro. — The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspensión and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.”

    So from what I gathered from what destierro means, the concubine can’t go near the designated area for a maximum of six years?

  4. thats right. destierro is similar to a TRO. it is given more for the benefit of the guilty party so that the relatives of the victim (in this case, the offended spouse) wont harm said guilty party (in this case the concubine).

    now youd probably ask, “if she was the concubine and convicted with destierro, isnt the penalty supposed to be adverse to her, rather than favorable?”

    the answer is simple. the people who drafted the Revised Penal Code decades ago were men. haha

  5. also, concubinage is pretty hard to prove.

    in this case, youd be liable for concubinage if:
    “a husband who shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife”

    it may be argued by the husband that during the time they were having sex, it was not under a scandalous circumstance, say they were in a hotel/motel room or somewhere private. Thus, the act of having sex was not done under scandalous circumstances.

    it is however the fact of spreading the video that made the entire incident “scandalous”. But “scandalous” under concubinage refers to the sexual act alone. Therefore, through a technicality and even though everyone knows that Wally’s had/having sex with another woman not his wife, he may still not be held guilty for concubinage. (ahhhhhh…isnt the law beautiful!?!?!)

    Again, the legislators of RPC made concubinage hard to prove, precisely because most of them had queridas of their own.

    In Wally’s case or in any other scandal incident, the remedy of the:

    1) wife is under RA 9262 or the anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act (VAWC)

    2) for the shamed partner, regardless if she gave consent to the video BUT did not give consent to the spreading of the video, then her remedy is also RA 9262, and/or RA9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act.

    This is not to say that the wife shouldnt file the concubinage case, she should. after all the filing fee for a criminal case is less than a thousand pesos.

    the question however is, “would it prosper?”