The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday said a person with an intellectual disability is not disqualified from testifying in court solely because of their condition.
In People v. Bragais penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC emphasized that “a person’s ability to testify as a witness depends on their capacity to relay their knowledge.”
It added that 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 High Tribunal found that the regional trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the witness, made an independent assessment of the witness’ credibility, including his ability to tell the truth.
In affirming the guilt of Bragais and Tacuyo, the SC highlighted the importance of improving how people with disabilities are referred to.
The Court 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.
The SC’s Second Division found Jose Roel Bragais and Alfredo Tacuyo guilty of murder, accepting the testimony of the sole eyewitness Mambo Dela Cruz Delima, who is described by his mother as a “special child” with a “speech impediment” and “some mental deficiency.”
