GR 120787; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120787 ; October 13, 2000
Carmelita G. Abrajano, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Carmelita Gilbuena-Abrajano was convicted of bigamy by the Regional Trial Court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The prosecution’s case rested on documentary evidence from an NBI investigation, which concluded that “Carmen Gilbuena,” who married Mauro Espinosa in 1968, and “Carmelita Gilbuena,” who married Roberto Abrajano in 1974, were the same person. This inference was drawn from the identical parents listed in both marriage contracts and Carmelita’s age being consistent with Carmen’s age at her first marriage. The defense presented petitioner’s testimony that Carmen was a half-sister, a birth certificate proving her name as Carmelita, and a handwriting expert who concluded the signatures on the two marriage contracts were from different persons. The trial court rejected this defense, finding the coincidences overwhelming and dismissing the expert’s findings due to the undated specimen signatures.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant a new trial for the petitioner.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted a new trial. The legal logic centers on the proper exercise of judicial discretion to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the trial court improperly disregarded the defense’s expert handwriting analysis by imposing an unreasonable standard—requiring the specimen signatures to be dated and written at the same time as the questioned signatures for comparison. This was a clear error, as handwriting comparison does not require contemporaneous samples; old and new specimens can be validly compared by an expert. Furthermore, the Court noted the defense had identified specific, material witnesses who were available but not presented during trial, including a purported witness to the first marriage and a sister who could attest to Carmen’s separate existence. The failure to present this evidence, under the circumstances, was not a tactical choice but likely due to a misappreciation of its importance. Since this newly identified evidence could probably alter the result, a new trial is imperative in the interest of justice to allow its presentation. The case was remanded to the trial court for reception of this additional evidence.