When a Deaf-Mute Eyewitness Testifies: Credibility and Positive Identification in Robbery with Homicide

The Supreme Court, in People of the Philippines v. Edwin Aleman y Longhas (G.R. No. 181539, July 24, 2013), affirmed the conviction of an accused for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The case is instructive on two important points of evidence: the competence of a deaf-mute person to testify as an eyewitness, and the weight given to positive identification made in open court over a failure to identify in a police line-up.

Facts of the Case

On the evening of February 10, 2003, in Quezon City, a 55-year-old real estate broker, Ramon Jaime Birosel, was inside his parked car when two men approached. One of them, later identified as Edwin Aleman, knocked on the car window and repeatedly stabbed the victim, while a companion fired a gun. The men then took the victim's cellular phones, wallet, cash, necklace, and ring, and fled.

The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of Mark Almodovar, a 14-year-old deaf-mute who witnessed the incident. Mark, assisted by a licensed sign language interpreter, testified that he saw the attack from a distance of about eight to ten meters. He followed the two men after the crime and saw one of them remove his bonnet, revealing his face. Mark identified that man as Aleman.

Aleman interposed the defenses of denial and alibi, claiming he was playing billiards at the time of the incident. He also pointed out that Mark failed to identify him during two police line-ups conducted on February 13, 2003.

Issue

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had proven Aleman's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given that the sole eyewitness was a deaf-mute who had failed to identify the accused in a police line-up.

The Ruling: A Deaf-Mute is a Competent Witness

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that a deaf-mute is not incompetent to testify. Citing Rule 130, Section 20 of the Rules of Court, the Court reiterated that "all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses."

The Court held that a deaf-mute is a competent witness provided three conditions are met: (1) the witness can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) the witness can comprehend the facts to be testified on; and (3) the witness can communicate ideas through a qualified interpreter. In this case, Mark was assisted by a licensed sign language interpreter from the Philippine Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, and the trial court found that Mark understood the oath and could clearly recount what he perceived.

The Court also noted that the manner of examining a deaf-mute witness is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Minor inconsistencies in Mark's testimony, the Court explained, were due to the inherent difficulty of eliciting testimony from a deaf-mute and did not detract from his credibility.

Positive Identification in Court Prevails

The Court likewise rejected Aleman's argument that Mark's failure to identify him in the police line-up rendered his testimony doubtful. There is no law requiring a police line-up for proper identification. What matters is the positive identification of the accused in open court. The Court noted that the records even showed Mark identified Aleman in a later line-up on February 18, 2003, and, more importantly, positively identified him during trial.

The Court also gave weight to the corroborating physical evidence: the medico-legal report showing the victim died of multiple stab wounds in the thorax, which matched Mark's eyewitness account.

The Penalty and Damages

The Court affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, since no aggravating circumstance attended the crime. It increased the civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, conforming to current jurisprudence for crimes involving greater criminal propensity. The awards of P50,000.00 moral damages and P477,054.30 actual damages were affirmed, and interest at 6% per annum was imposed on all monetary awards from the date of finality of the decision.

Practical Takeaways

• Competence over disability. A deaf-mute can be a credible eyewitness if the person can perceive events, understand the oath, and communicate through a qualified interpreter.
• One credible witness is enough. The positive and credible testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
• Line-ups are not indispensable. Failure to identify an accused in a police line-up does not negate a positive identification made in open court.
• Physical evidence corroborates testimony. Medical findings that match an eyewitness's account strengthen the prosecution's case.
• Denial and alibi are weak defenses. These are easily overcome by positive identification and credible testimony, especially when corroborated by physical evidence.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.