Qualifications of Witnesses

Section 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. – All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. (20a)

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. (20)

General rule: All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be a witness.

The following are NOT the grounds to disqualify a witness:

1. Religious belief, unless otherwise provided by law,

2. Political belief, unless otherwise provided by law,

3. Interest in the outcome of the case, unless otherwise provided by law, or

4. Conviction of a crime, unless otherwise provided by law.

Illustrations of conviction of a crime: 

Under Article 821 of the Civil Code it provides that those who have been convicted of: 

Falsification of a document – are disqualified from being a witness to a will.

Perjury – are disqualified from being a witness to a will.

False testimony – are disqualified from being a 

witness to a will.

Jurisprudence whether children of tender years can testify.

A four-year old boy can already speak clearly, can understand things happening around him, and ready to study, to read and to write. For families who can afford, a four-year old child is already sent to the nursery to begin his/her studies. An intelligent boy is undoubtedly the best observer to be found. He is little influenced by the suggestion of others and describes objects and occurrences as he has really seen them (People of the Philippines v. Bustos, 45 Phil. 9).Unless a child’s testimony is punctured with serious inconsistencies as to lead one to believe that he was coached, if he can perceive and make known his perception, he is considered a competent witness (People of the Philippines v. Cidro, Et Al., 56 O.G. 3547).

Every child is presumed qualified to be a witness. The party challenging the child’s competency as a witness has the burden of substantiating his challenge. (The People of the Philippines v. Alvin Esugon y Avila, G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015, Bersamin, J.).

In People v. Mendiola, G.R. No. 134846, August 8, 2000, 337 SCRA 418, the Court considered a 6-year-old victim competent, and regarded her testimony against the accused credible. In Dulla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123164, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 32, the testimony of the three-year-old victim was deemed acceptable. 

Section 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. – A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception. (36a)

A witness must have a personal knowledge on matters that he or she is testifying. A personal knowledge is that which are derived from his or her own personal perception. 

A most basic rule is that a witness can only testify on matters that he or she knows of her personal knowledge. This rule does not change even if the required standard be substantial evidence, preponderance of evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, or clear and convincing evidence. (Cited in Re: Verified Complaint of Alfonso Umali, Jr vs. Hon. Jose R. Hernandez, IPI No. 15-35-SB-J, February 23, 2016, Bersamin, J.).

The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive pre-requisite for accepting testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft of personal knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her testimony derives its value not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying but from the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of her information. (Cited in Re: Verified Complaint of Alfonso Umali, Jr vs. Hon. Jose R. Hernandez, IPI No. 15-35-SB-J, February 23, 2016, Bersamin, J.).

To be clear, personal knowledge is a substantive pre-requisite for accepting testimonial evidence to establish the truth of a disputed fact. (Id).

Section 23. Disqualification by reason of marriage. – During their marriage, the husband or the wife cannot testify against the other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. (22a)

The reason of the Rule is to preserve the love and peace within the family. The family must be protected and must be preserved. In fact, the very Constitution provides the scenery of the family.

Illustration: Husband boxed the “Stranger”. That “Stranger has a secret sexual relationship with his wife. The wife saw this boxing incident. In this situation, the wife cannot testify for or against her husband without the consent of the husband. (That if the Rule provides otherwise, the family will be shattered and ultimately will become a broken family).

Illustration: The husband wanted to live permanently separated from his nagger wife. To get his aim, he threatened and intimidated his wife and poked a gun into wife’s mouth so that the wife will abandon the husband. In this case, the wife may testify against her husband.

Illustration: The husband is so lazy, but he needs money for his several vices (gambling, drinking liquor, womanizing). The husband is inducing and even pimp his own minor daughter for money. This crime of the husband was discovered by the wife. In this case, the wife can testify against her husband. A crime is committed against the wife’s direct descendant-the minor daughter.