This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Even a mental retardate or feeble-minded person qualifies as a competent witness if she can perceive and, perceiving, can make known her perception to others. In People v. Maceda,[48] we held that the mental unsoundness of the witness at the time of the event testified to affects only her credibility. As long as the witness can convey ideas by words or signs and gives sufficiently intelligent answers to the questions propounded, she is a competent witness even if she is a mental retardate. In People v. Salomon,[49] this Court held that "[a] mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. As in the case of other witnesses, acceptance of one's testimony depends on its nature and credibility." In People v. Gerones,[50] the Court allowed the victim to testify, even if she had the mental age of a 9 or 10-year old. Likewise, in People v. Antonio,[51] the Court allowed the testimony of a 24-year old woman who had the mental age of a seven-year old child, because the Court was convinced that "she was capable of perceiving and making her perception known." | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| AAA's mental condition, to stress, does not prevent her from being a competent and credible witness. As has been held, a mental retardate is not disqualified from being a witness; the retardate's mental condition does not, on that ground alone, vitiate his or her credibility.[17] If the mental retardate's testimony is coherent, it is admissible in court.[18] Evidently, the trial court had ascertained the veracity and credibility of AAA's testimony sufficient to support a finding of conviction, thus: To the mind of the court, the testimony alone of the retarded victim will SUFFICE to carry solely for the prosecution the burden of proof required by the law and rules. The victim, [AAA], was CONSISTENT in all the declarations she executed before the police (Sworn Statement), and the testimony she gave before this court during the trial - that she was RAPED by accused PAUL ALIPIO @ AYONA in their house in Sitio Liman, Bgy. San Francisco, Bulan, Sorsogon, when she was sent by the sister of the accused (Marilou Gipit) to borrow money from their father, Saul Alipio. Notwithstanding the fact, that the victim failed to give the approximate date of the rape incident when asked by the prosecutor during the direct-examination, such an omission or mental lapse on her part was supplemented by the testimonies of her mother, [BBB], and another prosecution witness, Dr. Ma. Belen Gordola. The latter testified, that at the time of the examination of the patient - victim, she was able to arrive at the conclusion that the uterus was seven months old because of the palpation she did by measuring the patient's abdomen and palpating the fetus inside. Considering that the fetus was seven (7) months old at the time of her examination, the possible date of conception would be in the month of May or in the FIRST WEEK OF JUNE or in the last week of April. Moreover, even the substance of the testimonies of defense witnesses x x x attest to the fact - that it was in the month of June, 2000 when they saw the victim [AAA] [come] to Sitio Liman, bringing the vale sheet from the daughter of Saul Alipio named Marilou Gipit who sent her for an errand. It must be emphasized likewise, that by reason of her mental abnormality the victim is oriented to place and person BUT NOT TO DATE (Exhibit "C-1"/p. 2 - Psychiatric Evaluation).[19] | |||||