By Benjamin Pulta
MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday reiterated that a person with intellectual disability is not disqualified from testifying in court as it affirmed the murder conviction of two men in a case where the lone eyewitness was a 28-year-old with a speech impediment and mental deficiency.
In a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC’s Second Division found Jose Roel Bragais and Alfredo Tacuyo guilty of murder, accepting the testimony of a witness with intellectual disability.
In the same ruling, the Court highlighted the importance of improving how people with disabilities are referred to.
It also advocated for the use of people-first language, which emphasizes the individual before their disability.
While the term “mental retardate” is a legitimate medical term, the SC said it is no longer preferred because of its negative meanings.
In 2011, Bragais and Tacuyo were charged with the murder of a 12-year-old girl. The sole eyewitness was 28-year-old Mambo Dela Cruz Delima, who is described by his mother as a “special child” with a “speech impediment” and “some mental deficiency.”
On the date of the murder, Delima came home to his mother, saying, “Ma [‘]eron ako kita [‘]dun e, gahasa siya, kita ko e, banta pa nga nila [‘]ko papatayin nila [‘]ko, e (Ma, I saw someone get raped, they even threatened to kill me).”
His mother accompanied him to the police station, where she remained with him while the investigator took his statement, which they signed together.
During the trial, the prosecution asked permission from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to ask Delima leading questions, or questions that tend to guide a witness to answer in a particular way.
Under the Revised Rules on Evidence, leading questions are generally not allowed during direct examination.
However, leading questions may be allowed in cases when it is difficult to get clear and understandable answers, particularly if the witness is a child or has an intellectual disability.
The RTC granted the request, but asked for evidence showing Mambo’s mental age.
The prosecution presented a report from the National Center for Mental Health, which showed that Delima has an intellectual disability classified as “moderate mental retardation.”
Although his mental age is estimated to be between three and seven years old, he was competent to testify as a witness.
During his testimony, Delima identified Bragais and Tacuyo as the persons who killed the 12-year-old victim.
The RTC convicted Bragais and Tacuyo, who then appealed their conviction, arguing that Delima should have been disqualified as a witness.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, finding Mambo capable as a witness despite his mental condition. This led to the current appeal.
In affirming the conviction of Bragais and Tacuyo, the SC ruled that Mambo was competent to testify.
The SC emphasized that a person’s ability to testify as a witness depends on their capacity to relay their knowledge.
“If their testimony is clear and understandable, it can be accepted,” it said.
Likewise, A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, which amends the Revised Rules on Evidence, state that all “persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.”
The SC found that the RTC, which had the opportunity to observe the witness, made an independent assessment of Mambo’s credibility, including his ability to tell the truth.
The RTC likewise found Mambo’s testimony to be consistent and unwavering in identifying the accused as the individuals who committed the crime.
Based on the evidence, the SC found that all the elements of murder were duly established by the prosecution.
Bragais and Tacuyo were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the victim’s legal heirs the total sum of PHP 275,000, with legal interest of 6 percent per annum from finality of judgment, until full payment. (PNA)
