G.R. No.

181539 July 24, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWIN ALEMAN y LONGHAS,
Accused-Appellant.

Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Doctrine:

The mere fact that Mark is a deaf-mute does not render him unqualified to be a witness. The rule is
that "all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may
be witnesses." A deaf-mute may not be able to hear and speak but his/her other senses, such as
his/her sense of sight, remain functional and allow him/her to make observations about his/her
environment and experiences. The inability to hear and speak may prevent a deaf-mute from
communicating orally with others but he/she may still communicate with others in writing or through
signs and symbols and, as in this case, sketches. Thus, a deaf-mute is competent to be a witness so
long as he/she has the faculty to make observations and he/she can make those observations
known to others.

Facts:

On February 10, 2003, Ramon Birosel was killed on his car by the accused through stab wounds.
The sole witness of the incident was Mark Almodovar, who was 14 years old when he testified. He is
a deaf-mute. He was assisted in his testimony by Daniel Catinguil, a licensed sign language
interpreter from the Philippine Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf who has been teaching in the
Philippine School for the Deaf since 1990. Catinguil had also completed a five-year course at the
Philippine Normal University with a degree in teaching special education children.

The RTC rendered a decision against the accused, which was likewise affirmed by CA. Hence this
peitition.

Issue:

Whether mark is a qualified witness considering that he is a deaf-mute?

Ruling:

Yes. In this case, both the trial and the appellate courts found that Mark understood and appreciated
the sanctity of an oath and that he comprehended the facts he testified on. This Court sees no
reason in ruling otherwise. Mark communicated his ideas with the help of Catinguil, a licensed sign
language interpreter from the Philippine Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf who has been teaching
in the Philippine School for the Deaf since 1990 and possessed special education and training for
interpreting sign language. The trial and the appellate courts found Catinguil qualified to act as
interpreter for Mark. No ground to disturb that finding exists.

As this Court held in People v. Tuangco:

A deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can
make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses
where they (1) can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts
they are going to testify on; and (3) can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter.
Thus, in People vs. De Leon and People vs. Sasota, the accused was convicted on the basis of the
testimony of a deaf-mute. x x x. (Citations omitted.)