Case Digest (G.R. No. 120787)
Facts:
On January 4, 1993, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila convicted Carmelita G. Abrajano of bigamy, a decision that was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The case stemmed from the investigation into the killing of Atty. Jose J. Alfane on June 11, 1983, which led the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to examine the possible involvement of Atty. Carmelita Gilbuena-Abrajano, who worked at the Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) alongside Alfane. During the investigation, the CLAO provided a memorandum dated July 21, 1983, recommending the termination of Carmelita's services for immorality, which included certified copies of two marriage contracts. The first contract, dated January 3, 1968, was between Mauro Espinosa and Carmen Gilbuena, while the second, dated June 21, 1974, was between Roberto Abrajano and Carmelita Gilbuena. The NBI concluded that Carmelita and Carmen were the same person based on shared parental information, age similarities, and C...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 120787)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- Petitioner Carmelita Gilbuena-Abrajano was convicted of Bigamy by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila on January 4, 1993. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). She pleaded her innocence before the Supreme Court, which initially denied her petition for review. However, upon reconsideration, the Supreme Court granted her a new trial.
Investigation and Charges:
- The case arose from the killing of Atty. Jose J. Alfane on June 11, 1983. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) investigated Atty. Carmelita Gilbuena-Abrajano, a lawyer from the same office as Alfane, for possible complicity.
- The Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) provided the NBI with a Memorandum dated July 21, 1983, recommending Carmelita's termination for immorality, among other grounds. Attached to the Memorandum were certified copies of two marriage contracts:
- A marriage contract dated January 3, 1968, between Mauro Espinosa and Carmen Gilbuena.
- A marriage contract dated June 21, 1974, between Roberto Abrajano and Carmelita Gilbuena.
- Carmelita's Personal History Statement, submitted to the Ministry of Justice, was also attached.
NBI's Findings:
- The NBI concluded that Carmelita and Carmen Gilbuena were the same person based on:
- Both marriage contracts listed the same parents (Filomeno Gilbuena and Adelaida Juangco).
- Carmelita's declared date of birth (November 9, 1948) matched Carmen's age at the time of her marriage to Espinosa.
- Carmelita did not list a sister named "Carmen" in her Personal History Statement.
Petitioner's Defense:
- Carmelita claimed that Carmen was her half-sister, the daughter of her father with another woman.
- She presented a Birth Certificate to prove her true name was "Carmelita."
- She also presented a handwriting expert, Josefina L. dela Cruz, who concluded that the signatures in the two marriage contracts were made by different persons.
Trial Court's Decision:
- The RTC rejected Carmelita's defense, finding the similarities between Carmen and Carmelita too coincidental. The court also faulted her for not presenting corroborative evidence to prove Carmen's existence.
- The RTC found her guilty of Bigamy and sentenced her to six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years of prision mayor.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals:
- The CA affirmed the RTC's decision on May 11, 1995. Carmelita's motion for reconsideration was denied on June 22, 1995.
Supreme Court's Initial Decision:
- Carmelita filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which denied it on September 20, 1995, for being factual and failing to show reversible error.
- The resolution denying the petition became final and executory on February 23, 1996, with entry of judgment on April 12, 1996.
Subsequent Motions:
- Unaware of the denial, Carmelita filed a motion for leave to admit a supplemental petition on July 15, 1996. The Court denied this motion on August 5, 1996.
- She filed an "Omnibus Motion" on January 7, 1998, praying for the vacation of the entry of judgment and a new trial.
Issue:
- Whether the entry of judgment should be vacated to allow a new trial.
- Whether the petitioner should be granted a new trial to present additional evidence to prove her innocence.
- Whether the petitioner's conviction for Bigamy was based on sufficient evidence.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court vacated the entry of judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial, allowing the petitioner to present additional evidence to prove her innocence. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that justice is served, even if it requires relaxing procedural rules.