SC reiterates ruling that persons with intellectual disabilities not disqualified from testifying
Urges use of people-first language
A PERSON with an intellectual disability is not disqualified from testifying in court solely because of their disability.
This was reiterated by the Supreme Court (SC) in a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, where the Court’s Second Division found Jose Roel Bragais (Bragais) and Alfredo Tacuyo (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. 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 (Mambo), 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 at around 5:00 p.m., 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 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. This refers to the stage of a trial when the party, through their lawyer, asks their witness questions. 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, who then appealed their conviction, arguing that Mambo 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.
This is further reflected in A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, which amends the Revised Rules on Evidence to 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% per annum from finality of judgment, until full payment. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public by the Supreme Court Public Information Office as a simplified summary of the Court’s Decision. For the Court’s complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 270580 (People v. Bragais and Tacuyo, July 29, 2024) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/270580-people-of-the-philippines-vs-jose-roel-bragais-y-sison-and-alfredo-tacuyo-y-evangelista/
