Maaaring maging testigo sa Korte ang may “intellectual disability”

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | May 21, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Maaari po bang maging testigo ang taong may intellectual disability? — Dandan

---

Dear Dandan,

Ang ebidensya ay ang paraan ng pagpapatunay ng mga karampatang katotohanan sa mga paglilitis sa hukuman. Tinatanggap bilang ebidensya kung may kaugnayan ito sa isyung pinag-uusapan, at hindi ipinagbabawal ng batas at mga tuntunin. 

Alinsunod sa ating Revised Rules on Evidence, maaaring maging saksi ang sinuman na may kakayahang makaunawa sa kanilang nasaksihan, at kayang ipahayag o iparating ang mga ito sa iba:

“C. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

1. Qualification of Witnesses

Sec. 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. – All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.”

Sa kasong People of the Philippines vs. Jose Roel Bragais y Sison and Alfredo Tacuyo y Evangelista, G.R. No. 270580, 29 Hulyo 2024, sa panulat ni Kagalang-galang na Kasamang Mahistrado Marvic Mario Victor Famorca Leonen, inulit ng ating Korte Suprema ang pasya nito na ang mga taong may intellectual disability ay hindi diskuwalipikado para maging isang testigo sa korte dahil lamang sa kanilang kapansanan:

“A person with intellectual disability ‘is not, by reason of such handicap alone… disqualified from testifying in court. [Intellectual disability] per se does not affect credibility. A [person with intellectual disability] may be a credible witness. The acceptance of [their] testimony depends on the quality of [their] perceptions and the manner [they] can make them known to the court. If the testimony of a [person with intellectual disability] is coherent, the same is admissible in court.’

x x x          x x x          x x x

Before A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC amended the Revised Rules on Evidence, this Court had already categorically stated that a person with intellectual disability ‘is not, solely by this reason, ineligible from testifying in court.’ The Court expressly reinforced this stance specifically as to such persons who nevertheless could ‘convey ideas by words or signs and give sufficiently intelligent answers to questions propounded’:

In People v. Trelles, where the trial court relied heavily on the [testimony of therein private complainant, who was a person with intellectual disability,] [regardless] of her ‘monosyllabic responses and vacillations between lucidity and ambiguity,’ this Court held:

A [person with intellectual disability] is not, per se, disqualified from being a witness, her mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. It is now universally accepted that intellectual [disability], no matter what form it assumes, is not a valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to.

It cannot be gainsaid that a [person with intellectual disability] can be a witness, depending on his or her ability to relate what he or she knows. If his or her testimony is coherent, the same is admissible in court.

To be sure, modern rules on evidence have downgraded [intellectual disability] as a ground to disqualify a witness. As observed by McCormick, the remedy of excluding such a witness who may be the only person available who knows the facts, seems inept and primitive. Our rules follow the modern trend of evidence.

With the A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence coming into effect, the new Rule 130, Section 21(1) now simply states that ‘[all] persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.’

Clearly, then, there is no basis for the defense’s insistence that ‘Mambo should have been deemed incompetent witness from the onset.’ x x x”

Ipinaliwanag ng ating Korte Suprema na ang kakayahan ng isang tao na tumestigo bilang saksi ay nakasalalay sa kanilang kapasidad na ihatid ang kanilang kaalaman. Kung malinaw at naiintindihan ang kanilang patotoo, maaari itong tanggapin.

Gayundin, binigyang-diin ng ating Korte Suprema sa nasabing kaso ang kahalagahan ng pagpapabuti kung paano tinutukoy ang mga taong may kapansanan. Iminungkahi rin nito ang paggamit ng people-first language, na nagbibigay-diin sa indibidwal, at hindi sa kanyang kapansanan, sa pamamagitan ng paglalagay ng sanggunian sa tao o grupo bago ang pagtukoy sa kapansanan.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.