The Supreme Court (SC) upheld its ruling that a person with intellectual disability can still testify in court despite their medical condition.
In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the higher Court indicated that intellectual disabilities are not valid grounds to disqualify a person from testifying at court.
“A person with intellectual disability may be a credible witness. The acceptance of [their] testimony depends on the quality of [their] perceptions and the manner [they] can make them known to the court,” the SC wrote.
“If the testimony of a [person with intellectual disability] is coherent, the same is admissible in court,” it added.
The Court's Second Division found Jose Roel Bragais and Alfredo Tacuyo guilty for murdering a 12-year-old girl back in 2011. With the Court's decision, they highlighted the importance of improving how people with disabilities are referred to. Moreover, the Court advocated for the use of people-first language, emphasizing that the individual comes first before their disability.
Although a legitimate medical term, the SC no longer prefers the word “mental retardate” due to its negative meanings. The case's sole eyewitness was 28-year-old Mambo Dela Cruz Delima, who is described as a “special child” with a “speech impediment” and “some mental deficiency.”
On the right of the murder, Delima came to his mother after witnessing what happened. They went to the police station, and gave a statement.
During the trial, the prosecution asked the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for permission to question Delima. Leading questions are allowed in cases during times when it gets difficult to get clear and understandable answers.
The report from the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) stated that Delima has an intellectual disability classified as “moderate mental retardation.” His mental age is estimated to be between three and seven years old, and was also told to be competent to testify as a witness.
Although the two suspects were charged, the RTC argued that Delima should've been disqualified as a witness.
However, the SC ruled that a person's ability to testify as a witness depends on their capacity to relay their knowledge, especially if their testimony is clear and understandable.
