Case Digest: Qualification of a witness

1. LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS*, Petitioner, v. THE HEIRS OF THE LATE DR. ANDRES

NAVARRO, JR
Facts:
Spouses Andres Navarro, Sr. and Concepcion Medina-Navarro died in 1958 and 1993,
respectively.  They left behind several parcels of land including a 108.3997-hectare lot (subject
lot) located in Cayabon, Milagros, Masbate.3

The spouses were survived by their daughters Luisa Navarro Marcos, herein petitioner, and
Lydia Navarro Grageda, and the heirs of their only son Andres Navarro, Jr.  The heirs of Andres,
Jr. are the respondents herein.4

Petitioner and her sister Lydia discovered that respondents are claiming exclusive ownership of
the subject lot.  Respondents based their claim on the Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property
dated May 19, 1954 where Andres, Sr. donated the subject lot to Andres, Jr. 5

Believing that the affidavit is a forgery, the sisters, through Assistant Fiscal Andres Marcos,
requested a handwriting examination of the affidavit.  The PNP handwriting expert PO2 Mary
Grace Alvarez found that Andres, Sr.’s signature on the affidavit and the submitted standard
signatures of Andres, Sr. were not written by one and the same person. 6

Thus, the sisters sued the respondents for annulment of the deed of donation before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate, where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5215. 7

After the pre-trial, respondents moved to disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a witness.  They argued that
the RTC did not authorize the handwriting examination of the affidavit.  They added that
presenting PO2 Alvarez as a witness will violate their constitutional right to due process since no
notice was given to them before the examination was conducted.8  Thus, PO2 Alvarez’s report is
a worthless piece of paper and her testimony would be useless and irrelevant. 9

In its Order10 dated August 19, 2004, the RTC granted respondents’ motion and disqualified PO2
Alvarez as a witness.  The RTC ruled that PO2 Alvarez’s supposed testimony would be hearsay
as she has no personal knowledge of the alleged handwriting of Andres, Sr.  Also, there is no
need for PO2 Alvarez to be presented, if she is to be presented as an expert witness, because her
testimony is not yet needed.

The sisters sought reconsideration of the order but the RTC denied their motion in an
Order11 dated October 11, 2005.
Aggrieved, the sisters filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which however, dismissed
their petition.
Issue:
W/N CA erred in not ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying
PO2 Alvarez as a witness.
Held:
Yes. Grave abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but it generally refers to capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.  The abuse of discretion
must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. 18  Grave abuse
of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the Constitution or grossly disregards
the law or existing jurisprudence.19

In Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System v. Republic of the
Philippines,20 we said that a witness must only possess all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided in the Rules of Court.  Section 20, Rule 130 of the Rules on
Evidence provides:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

SEC. 20.  Witnesses; their qualifications.–Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all
persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their 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 a ground for disqualification.

Specific rules of witness disqualification are provided under Sections 21 to 24, Rule 130 of
the Rules on Evidence.  Section 21 disqualifies a witness by reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity.  Section 22 disqualifies a witness by reason of marriage.  Section 23 disqualifies a
witness by reason of death or insanity of the adverse party.  Section 24 disqualifies a witness by
reason of privileged communication.
As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive and make known her
perception to others.  We have no doubt that she is qualified as a witness.  She cannot be
disqualified as a witness since she possesses none of the disqualifications specified under the
Rules.  Respondents’ motion to disqualify her should have been denied by the RTC for it was not
based on any of these grounds for disqualification.  The RTC rather confused the qualification of
the witness with the credibility and weight of her testimony.

Moreover, Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence is clear that the opinion of an expert
witness may be received in evidence, to wit:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
SEC. 49.  Opinion of expert witness.–The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in
evidence.

2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RODOLFO RIZO y RABINO

Facts:
Concepcion Dimen noticed that the stomach of her 22-year old mentally retarded sister,
Felicidad Valencia, was bigger than usual. She was suspicious and obtained a sample of
Felicidad's urine which she sent to a hospital for examination. The result showed that Felicidad
was pregnant.  1Upon questioning, Felicidad revealed that the herein defendant-appellant,
Rodolfo Rizo, the husband of her "yaya", Ana Rizo, had sexual intercourse with her in the
bodega.  2Concepcion Dimen and her brother, Boy Valencia, confronted the accused and the
latter admitted that he had sexual intercourse with Felicidad. Consequently, the appellant was
brought to the Masbate police station for investigation. There, with the assistance of CLAO Atty.
Osias Tambago, he also admitted having done the act.  3chanrobles virtual law library
In view thereof, Rodolfo Rizo was charged with the crime of Rape before the Regional Trial
Court at Masbate, Masbate.
At the trial, Dr. Emilio Quemi, a medical specialist at the Masbate Provincial Hospital, declared
that he examined Felicidad Valencia on 7 July 1986 and found her to be pregnant. He then
issued a medical certificate relative to his findings.  5 He also stated that Felicidad is a
mongoloid whose intellectual capacity is below normal and comparably that of a 5-year old
child and could not distinguish between what is moral and immoral. 6chanrobles virtual law
library
His observation was confirmed by Camila Ponferada, who conducts a school for children of pre-
school age, and had Felicidad for a pupil in the summer of 1986.  7chanrobles virtual law library
Felicidad Valencia, the victim, declared that she knows the accused, Rodolfo Rizo, whose
nickname is "Ompoy" and pointed to him in court. She related the manner the accused had
sexual intercourse with her.
The defendant Rodolfo Rizo, however, did not confirm nor deny the testimony of Felicidad that
he had sexual intercourse with her. After the prosecution rested its case, the said accused,
instead of presenting evidence in exculpation, filed a motion to dismiss (demurrer to evidence)
claiming insufficiency of evidence in that there is no evidence to prove his guilt other than the
inadmissible testimony of Felicidad Valencia who is mentally defective and, therefore,
incompetent to testify, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 130, Sec. 19 of the Rules of Court.But
the trial court found Felicidad Valencia to be a competent witness and rendered judgment
against the accused.
Issue:
W/N Felicidad is qualified as a witness?
Held:
Yes. To begin with, the accused-appellant, knowing Felicidad Valencia to be mentally defective
or a mental retardate, did not object to her competency as a witness before she was placed on
the witness stand. The appellant's failure to object to the competency of Felicidad as a witness
operated as a waiver and the trial court has no power to disregard it. In an early recorded
case, 12 the Court said:
Had the opposing party interposed an objection to this witness on the ground of incompetency,
her testimony could not have been received. His omission to object to her operated as a waiver.
The acceptance of an incompetent witness to testify in a civil suit, as well as the allowance of
improper questions that may be put to him while on the stand is a matter resting in the
discretion of the litigant. He may assert his right by timely objection or he may waive it, either
expressly or by silence. In any case the option rests with him. Once admitted, the testimony is in
the case for what it is worth and the judge has no power to disregard it for the sole reason that
it could have been excluded, if it had been objected to, nor to stake it out on his own motion.
The disqualification of witnesses found in rules of evidence of this character, is one not founded
on public policy but for the protection and convenience of litigants, and which consequently lies
within their control.
the decision as to the competency of a person to testify rests largely with the trial court, and in
this regard, the trial court said:
The Court has observed that when Felicidad Valencia was called to the witness stand, she was
led by her sister. She is around four (4) feet tall, with slanting eyes, short small flat head,
rounded and broad face, very shy and with her tongue oftentimes protruding on her side lips of
her mouth. Her hands and feet are short, broad and stubby. She had high cheek bones and
small nose with a depressed bridge. When she was sworn to tell the truth and was asked twice
by the interpreter she did not answer. However, when the sister asked her to tell the truth, she
nodded her head facing the sister. She speaks in stuttering soft monosyllables sometimes
accompanied by gestures and signs of her hands as well as the movements of her head to
indicate affirmative and negative response to a question. Questions she does not know, she
would not answer. She does not know her age, nor where she lives. She has not gone Grade one
nor beyond. She does not know the date, the time, and the number of times she was abused.
During the trial, her actuations and mannerism were too childish and innocent. She showed
constantly opened mouth with her tongue protruding on her side lips. Fely during the trial would
untie her shoes on the witness stand and lean on the shoulders of her sister. She would shake
her head sidewise left to right or nod her head and point her finger to her vagina (tsn, p. 241,
Records). She would even yawn in the witness stand resting her head on her two hands. She
would be scratching her head with her tongue protruding on the side lips of her mouth (tsn, p.
245, Records). These actuations in open court indicate mental abnormality and innocent childish
deficiency which are common forms of mental retardation considering that Fely is a mongoloid
of 22 years old. Yet, she is a credible and competent witness. 

3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN ALEMAN

Facts:
That on or about the 10th day of February 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring and confederating with another person whose true name, identity and other
personal circumstances have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping each other, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob one RAMON JAIME BIROSEL y VILLA in
the following manner, to wit: on the date and place aforementioned while said victim was
inside his car having a conversation over his cellphone, the said accused suddenly appeared and
with intent to gain and by means of violence approached the said vehicle and ordered said
victim to open it and once opened thereafter stabbed the said victim with a bladed weapon
hitting him on the thorax thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were
the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, and thereupon took, stole and carried
away the following, to wit:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
a) Two (2) Nokia cellular phones
b) One (1) brown leather wallet
c) Undetermined amount of cash money
d) One (1) necklace
e) One (1) men’s ring
all with undetermined value, belonging to said Ramon Jaime Birosel y Villa, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of said Ramon Jaime Birosel y Villa. 3

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned.4  After pre-trial was
conducted, trial ensued.

The prosecution established that, as shown in the medico-legal report prepared by Police
Senior Inspector (P/S Insp.) Elizardo Daileg of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory who autopsied the victim’s cadaver, the cause of death was “hemorrhagic shock
secondary to multiple stab wounds [in] the thorax.”  In particular, three penetrating stab
wounds were inflicted on the upper left portion of the victim’s chest, “piercing the upper lobe
of the left lung and perforating the heart.”  He also suffered stab wounds in the right eye,
stomach and left forearm and incised wounds in the left upper eyelid and left palm. 5

The victim, Ramon Jaime Birosel, was a 55-year old real estate broker at the time of his death. 
He was survived by his widow, Maria Filomena Birosel, with whom he had no child.  Filomena
spent a total of P477,054.30 in funeral expenses in connection with the burial of her deceased
husband.  Filomena stated that the Nokia 3315 and Siemens S-45 cellular phones taken away
from Ramon were valued at P3,500.00 each, while the necklace snatched from him was worth
P20,000.00.6

The prosecution’s case against accused-appellant hinges on the following eyewitness account of
Mark Almodovar. Mark 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.8

Accused-appellant was 26 years old and a resident of Area 6, Barangay Botocan, Project 2,
Quezon City when he testified.  He interposed denial and alibi as his defenses.  He claimed that,
at the time the incident happened on February 10, 2003, he was at the billiards hall which was a
15-minute walk from his residence.  A road separates the billiards hall from Sikatuna Bliss.
Accused-appellant’s testimony that he was at the billiards hall on February 10, 2003 playing
against Ruben until around 10:00 in the evening was corroborated by Filomena Fungo,
grandmother of Ruben, who saw accused-appellant and Ruben playing when she went to the
billiards hall twice that night to fetch Ruben.11  Hilda, accused-appellant’s sister, also
corroborated accused-appellant’s testimony that she fetched him from the billiards hall at
around 10:00 in the evening of February 10, 2003.  She further stated that, upon getting home,
she and accused-appellant ate dinner together and, thereafter, watched some television shows
until accused-appellant went to sleep some 30 minutes later.12

Accused-appellant also attempted to show that the eyewitness, Mark, failed to identify him
during the police line-up.  Defense witness SPO1 Leonardo Pasco stated that he was the one
who prepared the spot report although it was his superior who signed it.  He further stated that
Mark failed to identify accused-appellant during the police line-up.  Another defense
witness, barangay kagawad Ricofredo Barrientos, stated that he was with Mark on February
13, 2003 when Mark was asked to identify the robber-killer of the victim from a line-up. 
According to Barrientos, a police officer made a gesture to Mark by slashing his throat with the
use of his hand and, after viewing the persons in the line-up, Mark shook his head.  The line-up
was presented to Mark twice and he shook his head in both instances. 13

After studying the parties’ respective evidence, the trial court rejected the defenses of accused-
appellant for their inherent weakness and implausibility.  On the other hand, it viewed the
prosecution’s evidence favorably, particularly the eyewitness testimony of Mark and his
positive identification of accused-appellant as the one who stabbed the victim.  In particular,
the trial court found Mark’s testimony simple and credible.  He had no ill motive that would
make him testify falsely against accused-appellant.  While there were minor inconsistencies in
his testimony, the discrepancies were inconsequential and did not affect the truthfulness of
Mark’s narration. 
Issue:
W/N trial court erred in convicting him for robbery with homicide.  His claim was four-pronged,
all aimed at discrediting the eyewitness, Mark.
Held:
First, accused-appellant questioned the qualification of Mark to be a witness.  Accused-
appellant argued that, being a deaf-mute who cannot make known his perception to others as
he has no formal education on sign language, Mark is unqualified to be a witness.  In fact, he
was unable to give a responsive answer to some questions propounded to him through the
interpreter such as when he could not answer why he preferred to play in a basketball far from
his house than in a nearer one.16

Second, accused-appellant asserted that Mark’s testimony was not corroborated by his alleged
playmates or by the “chubby girl” he mentioned in his testimony.  Such lack of corroboration
weakened Mark’s testimony.17

Third, accused-appellant contended that Mark admitted receiving money, new clothes and
shoes from the private complainant before he took the witness stand.  This made his testimony
highly suspicious.18

Fourth, accused-appellant highlighted Mark’s failure to identify him as the perpetrator of the
crime in the two instances that he was presented to Mark in a line-up.  This made Mark’s
alleged positive identification of accused-appellant doubtful. 19

In its Decision dated September 28, 2007, the Court of Appeals held that the contentions of
accused-appellant lacked merit.20

The Court of Appeals declared that the capacity of a deaf-mute to testify has long been
recognized.  The witness may communicate his perceptions to the court through an
interpreter.  In this case, Mark’s testimony was facilitated by Catinguil, a licensed sign language
interpreter who has been teaching in the Philippine School for the Deaf since 1990.  With the
help of Catinguil, the trial court determined that Mark is not mentally deficient and that he was
able to tell time, space and distance.  He was able to draw and make sketches in open court to
show the relative position of things and persons as he perceived like a normal person.  By using
signs and signals, he was able to recount clearly what he witnessed in the evening of February
10, 2003.  According to the appellate court, the above established Mark’s competence as a
witness.21

The Court of Appeals also found that Mark’s testimony was corroborated by the findings of the
medico-legal officer who autopsied the victim’s corpse that the cause of death was
hemorrhagic shock secondary to multiple stab wounds in the thorax.  This physical evidence is
an eloquent manifestation of truth and its evidentiary weight is far more than that of
corroborative testimonies.22

The Court of Appeals rejected as groundless accused-appellant’s imputation to Mark of

improper motive or bias.  It also pointed out the irrelevance of non-identification of an accused
in a police line-up.  What is important is the positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime by the witness in open court.

4. RIZALINA GABRIEL GONZALES, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:
It appears that on June 24, 1961, herein private respondent Lutgarda Santiago filed a petition
with the Court of First Instance of Rizal docketed as Special Proceedings No. 3617, for the
probate of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased Isabel Gabriel and designating
therein petitioner as the principal beneficiary and
executrix.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
There is no dispute in the records that the late Isabel Andres Gabriel died as a widow and
without issue in the municipality of Navotas, province of Rizal her place of residence, on June 7,
1961 at the age of eighty-five (85), having been born in 1876. It is likewise not controverted
that herein private respondent Lutgarda Santiago and petitioner Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales are
nieces of the deceased, and that private respondent, with her husband and children, lived with
the deceased at the latters residence prior an- d up to the time of her
death.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The will submitted for probate, Exhibit "F", which is typewritten and in Tagalog, appears to have
been executed in Manila on the 15th day of April, 1961, or barely two (2) months prior to the
death of Isabel Gabriel. It consists of five (5) pages, including the pages whereon the attestation
clause and the acknowledgment of the notary public were written. The signatures of the
deceased Isabel Gabriel appear at the end of the will on page four and at the left margin of all
the pages. The attestation clause, which is found on page four. The petition was opposed by
Rizalina Gabriel Gonzales, herein petitioner, assailing the document purporting to be the will of
the deceased on the following grounds:
1. that the same is not genuine; and in the alternativechanrobles virtual law library
2. that the same was not executed and attested as required by law;chanrobles virtual law
library
3. that, at the time of the alleged execution of the purported wilt the decedent lacked
testamentary capacity due to old age and sickness; and in the second alternative chanrobles
virtual law library
4. That the purported WW was procured through undue and improper pressure and influence
on the part of the principal beneficiary, and/or of some other person for her benefit.
RTC disallowed probate as the last wig and testament of the deceased Isabel Gabriel.
From this judgment of disallowance, Lutgarda Santiago to CA.
Issue:
Whether or not the will in question was executed and attested as required by law.
Held:
I