Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. — Except as provided in
the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make their known perception to others, may be
witnesses. Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of
the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by
law, shall not be ground for disqualification. (Revised Rules of
Evidence)
The abovementioned provision entails that persons with disabilities, even those
with sensory impairments, may testify as witnesses, provided they can
“perceive and make known their perception to others.” For example, blind
persons can hear, smell and taste and deaf persons can see and “make known
their perceptions” through sign language interpreters.
The Rules provide that witnesses must answer the questions “orally”, except
when a “witness is incapacitated to speak, or the question calls for a different
mode
of
answer.”
Further, the Supreme Court, by virtue of a memorandum circular, has enjoined
judges to provide PWDs convenient access to courtrooms. In some cases,
this is done by holding sessions on the ground floor of court houses3
“Judges should take the proper measures to fully realize the policy set forth
in the Accessibility Law or the B.P. 344 with the view of providing disabled
persons convenient access to courtrooms holding sessions, if absolutely
necessary, on the ground floor or court houses” (Philippine Supreme Court
Circular No. 46-95)
3
Despite legal provisions allowing persons with disabilities to validly
testify in court proceedings, the problem lies with the appreciation or the
weight of the litigant’s testimony. It should be taken into consideration that
for instance, in cases of persons with psycho-social or sensory impairments,
the weight of testimonies would depend solely on the presiding judge. The
Rules of Court prescribe, under Rule 133, Weight and Sufficiency of
Evidence, that what the judge may consider in weighing the testimony of a
litigant are: “the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their
means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which there are testifying,
the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability
of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility ….”
In criminal cases, the test remains to be “moral certainty…in an
unprejudiced mind”
Given the abovementioned provisions of law, it may be inferred that
physical or mental impairments largely affects the “probative value of the
person’s testimony. This situation becomes all the more problematic if
aggravated by the lack of training of judges in handling cases involving
Supreme Court Memorandum Circular 46-95 (1995).