Credibility of a deaf-mute witness

One evening at around 8 p.m., a man was in his car, talking on his cellphone, when two men approached his car with the intent of robbing him. When the man on his cellphone stepped out of the car, he was stabbed by one of the two men several times. The man’s thorax was seriously wounded, which resulted in his death. Two cellphones, a wallet, some cash, and jewelry were taken from the victim. Little did the robbers know that a fourteen year-old boy had witnessed the entire crime. The boy had been playing basketball in the park right beside the parking lot and decided to take a bathroom break by the cars.

When the crime of robbery with homicide was filed against the two men, the prosecution only presented this one witness. During trial, this boy positively identified the two accused as the ones who stabbed the victim and stole his personal property. The problem presented by the defense was that the boy was a deaf-mute. Throughout his testimony, he was assisted by a licensed sign language interpreter from the Philippine Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. Thus, the deaf-mute should be unqualified to be a credible witness. Regardless, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. It found the witness’ testimony simple and credible and had no ill motive to give a false testimony. The Court of Appeals held that the boy was a competent witness who 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.”