ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | Feb. 14, 2025
![Magtanong kay Attorney ni Atty. Persida Acosta](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/a09711_5f41788bb1484503b537ca798dface3e~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_656,h_393,al_c,q_80,enc_avif,quality_auto/a09711_5f41788bb1484503b537ca798dface3e~mv2.jpg)
Dear Chief Acosta,
Maaari bang maging witness sa isang kaso ang pipi at bingi? — Beth
Dear Beth,
Ang ebidensya ay ang paraan ng pagpapatunay ng mga karampatang katotohanan sa mga paglilitis ng hudikatura. Tinatanggap bilang ebidensya kung may kaugnayan ito sa isyung pinag-uusapan, at hindi ipinagbabawal ng batas at mga tuntunin.
Alinsunod sa Rule 30 ng ating Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC dated 8 October 2019), maaaring maging saksi ang sinuman na nakauunawa 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. Adel Tuangco, et. al., (G.R. No. 130331, ika-22 ng Nobyembre 2000, Per Curiam), pinasyahan ng ating Korte Suprema na maaaring iharap at gamitin bilang testigo sa korte ang pipi at bingi kung (1) nauunawaan at kaya niyang pahalagahan ang kabanalan ng isang panunumpa, (2) nauunawaan niya ang kanyang mga nasaksihan at (3) maipararating niya ang mga nasaksihan sa pamamagitan ng isang kuwalipikadong interpreter:
“A deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they (1) can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and (3) can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter. Thus, in People vs. De Leon and People vs. Sasota, the accused was convicted on the basis of the testimony of a deaf-mute. Although in People vs. Bustos the testimony of a deaf-mute was rejected, this was because there were times during his testimony that the interpreter could not make out what the witness meant by the signs she used. In the instant case, the interpreter was a certified sign language interpreter with twenty-two (22) years teaching experience at the Philippine School for the Deaf, had exposure in television programs and had testified in five other previous court proceedings. She possessed special education and training for interpreting sign language. The trial court evaluated her competence to put on record with accuracy the declaration made by witness Sanggalan on the witness stand, and she testified that she employed the natural or homemade sign method. Needless to stress, the manner in which the examination of a deaf-mute should be conducted is a matter to be regulated and controlled by the trial court in its discretion, and the method adopted will not be reviewed by the appellate court in the absence of a showing that the complaining party was in some way injured by reason of the particular method adopted. The imperfections or inconsistencies cited in appellants' brief arise from the fact that there is some difficulty in eliciting testimony where the witness is deaf-mute, but these do not detract from the credibility of his testimony, much less justify the total rejection of the same. What is material is that he knew personally the accused-appellants, was with them on the fateful night when the incident happened, and had personally witnessed the rape-slay and theft three and ½ (3 ½) meters away from the scene. He did not waver in the identification of the three accused despite rigorous cross-examination, and positively pointed to the accused-appellants as the persons who raped and killed Eugenio and took her personal effects. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of Sanggalan, whose testimony was found to be candid and straightforward, deserves the highest respect of this Court.”
Sa madaling salita, ang taong may kapansanan ay hindi ganap na diskuwalipikado upang maging testigo sa korte.
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.
Comments