Dear PAO,

I am worried that the criminal case I intend to file against a certain individual who molested my kid could be dismissed because the only witness we can present is an adult who has the mental capacity of a child and is considered a person with disability. The accused even claims that our witness is incompetent because of his mental condition. Is he correct?

Castorski

Dear Castorski,

The qualifications of a witness are specifically governed by Section 21 of Rule 130 of AM 19-08-15-SC, dated Oct. 8, 2019, otherwise known as the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, which provides that:

“Sec. 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. – All persons who can perceive, and 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.”

Correlative thereto, Section 22 of the same rules also provides that: “A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception.”

Thus, any person may be a witness as long as he can perceive and can make known his perception to others. This includes a person of disability. As illustrated in People of the Philippines v. Bragais and Tacuyo, GR 270580, July 29, 2024, which was penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M. V. F. Leonen:

“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] or 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.”

Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, a witness with mental or intellectual disability may become a witness and his or her competency will not be measured on disability alone. Intellectual disability per se is not a valid objection to the competency of a witness as long as the latter can give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter to be testified to. Thus, the testimony of your intended witness may be admitted in court provided he has the ability to relate what he knows about the case.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.