ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | June 24, 2021
Dear Chief Acosta,
Maaari bang makapaghain ng reklamong kriminal kung isa lamang ang nakakita sa buong pangyayari kung kaya’t siya lamang ang posibleng tumayong testigo para sa nag-aakusa? – Jecko
Dear Jecko,
Malaki ang maitutulong ng pagkakaroon ng testigo sa pagsulong ng kaso laban sa taong kanyang inirereklamo. Sa pamamagitan ng testimonya ng testigo ay maaaring mabigyan ng higit na linaw ang posisyon o akusasyon ng partido.
Para sa inyong kaalaman, ang taong nakakagunita at naipapahayag ang kanyang nagugunita ay maaaring maging testigo. Ito ay malinaw na nakasaad sa ilalim ng 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, partikular na sa Section 21 ng Rule 130 na nagsasaad ng sumusunod:
“Sec. 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. – All persons who can perceive, and in perceiving can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.”
Kaugnay ng iyong katanungan, masasabing kahit isa lamang ang nakakita sa buong pangyayari na mayroong kaugnayan sa krimen ay maaari siyang tumayo bilang testigo para sa nag-aakusa kung siya ay nakakagunita at kaya niyang ipahayag ang kanyang nagunita.
Ipinaliwanag din ng ating Korte Suprema sa kasong People of the Philippines vs. Reymar Masilang y Laciste (G.R. No. 246466, January 26, 2021, Ponente: Honorable former Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta), na ang paghahatol sa taong inaakusahan ng krimen ay ibabase sa kredibilidad ng testigo at hindi sa dami ng bilang ng testigo. Sa kasong ito, ang pagkakakilanlan o identification ng taong inaakusahan ng krimen na murder ay nakasalalay sa testimonya ng nag-iisang testigo. Ayon sa ating Korte Suprema:
“x x x An accused is convicted, not on the basis of the number of witnesses against him, but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness who is able to convince the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of a doubt; in other words, not quantitatively but qualitatively. x x x
In the matter of credibility of witnesses, well-entrenched is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court should be respected. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of prosecution eyewitness Edgardo Gamboa who positively identified the accused-appellant as the one who killed Rose Yuzon.
The trial court stated:
Gamboa’s testimony as an eyewitness’ account of the shocking murder of the young victim left too little to be desired. Gamboa narrated his experience confidently despite his reluctance to conclude his testimony. There was hardly any doubt that he was talking about an incident he had personal knowledge of. He remembered the small details of the incident such as the gesture of the accused in offering a piece of hamburger to the victim. He specifically remembered that at [the] very moment the girl was hacked with a bolo, her eyes were covered with a handkerchief that was colored red. He vividly recalled that when the girl was hacked, her hands were on her face. Finally, Gamboa recalled the victim's faint cry for help while her head was being banged against the tomb by the accused.”
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang inyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa impormasyon na inyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng inyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.