THE Supreme Court has affirmed that persons with intellectual disabilities are not disqualified from testifying solely because of their disability.
This was contained a in ruling of the SC’s Second Division promulgated on July 29, 2024 through Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, where it found Jose Roel Bragais and Alfredo Tacuyo guilty of murder, accepting the testimony of a witness with intellectual disability.
In affirming the guilt of Bragais and Tacuyo, the SC highlighted the importance of improving how people with disabilities are referred to as it advocated 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 meaning.
Records of the case showed that in 2011, Bragais and Tacuyo were charged with the murder of a 12-year-old girl.
The sole eyewitness to the crime 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, Mambo came home to his mother saying, “Ma meron 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).”
Prompted by his son’s disclosure, Mambo’s mother accompanied him to the police station, where she remained with him while the investigator took his statement, which they signed together.
LEADING QUESTIONS
During the trial, the prosecution asked permission from the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court to ask Mambo 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 stated that Mambo 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, Mambo identified Bragis and Tacuyo as the persons who killed the 12-year-old girl.
The RTC convicted Bragais and Tacuyo and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. The two appealed their conviction, arguing that Mambo should have been disqualified as a witness.
But the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, finding Mambo capable as a witness despite his mental condition.
This prompted the two to elevate the case to the SC.
COMPETENT
In affirming the conviction of Bragais and Tacuyo, the SC ruled that Mambo was competent to testify, adding 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, the SC added.
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.
“Accused-appellant Bragais’ bare denial and unsubstantiated alibi cannot defeat Mambo’s positive identification of him and accused-appellant Tacuyo as Paula’s killers especially when it is taken together with Mambo’s straightforward and detailed narration of how Paula’s killing had transpired,” the SC held
Based on the evidence, the SC found that all the elements of murder were duly established by the prosecution.
With this, the High Court upheld the reclusion perpetua sentence imposed on Bragais an Tacuyo and ordered to pay the victim’s legal heirs the total sum of P275,000, with legal interest of 6 percent per annum from finality of judgment, until full payment.
Concurring with the ruling are Associate Justices Amy Lazaro Javier, Mario Lopez, Jhosep Lopez and Antonio Kho Jr.
