Ian Alfredo Magno
AND so the chairman had to make a “call to order” as the members and others present burst into hilarious laughter. That was when Colanggo, the inmate-turned-witness quipped his famed remark in one of the hearings of the House Committee on Justice regarding the alleged Bilibid drug trade: “Attorney, ang resibo.”
Entertaining indeed. It was reminiscent of those scenes in a local movie of the likes of Paquito Diaz, where he is depicted as a boss in a clandestine meeting with rowdy cronies in a dimly lit hideout, and a sprucely dressed lawyer in their midst. Of course, they get to be killed by some gun-slinging probinsyano at the end of the story, though.
Many commended the famed witness for testifying against the lady senator who is alleged to be a drug protector. Understandably too, many others just wouldn’t want to take his word for it, being a convicted felon. Hence, it seems inevitable for speculations to hound the public mind whether the likes of Colanggo, a convicted criminal, is disqualified to testify.
Section 20 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence under the Rules of Court holds: “All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their known 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 ground for disqualification.”
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Umali G.R. No. 84450 dated 4 February 1991, the Supreme Court clarified the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” of the above-cited provision: “The phrase ‘conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law’ takes into account Article 821 of the Civil Code which states that persons ‘convicted of falsification of a document, perjury or false testimony’ are disqualified from being witnesses to a will.”
Meanwhile, Section 11 of Rule 132 thereof provides that an otherwise qualified witness may nonetheless be impeached: “A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present, testimony...”
The likes of Colanggo, for instance, who has been convicted of heinous crimes--does his sullied reputation discredit him from being a witness, for having a generally bad reputation for truth, honesty and integrity by reason of his daunting criminal records?
In the case of People vs. Dominguez G.R. No. 100199 dated 18 January 1993 which, in turn, cited Cordial vs. People G.R. No. L-75880 dated 27 September 1988, the Supreme Court had occasion to further articulate that “Even convicted criminals are not excluded from testifying in court so long as, having organs of sense, they can perceive and perceiving can make known their perceptions to others.
The fact of prior criminal conviction alone does not suffice to discredit a witness; the testimony of such a witness must be assayed and scrutinized in exactly the same way the testimony of other witnesses must be examined for its relevance and credibility.”
At this point, however, it must be stressed that the hearings conducted by the House Committee on Justice probing the alleged drug trade in Bilibid, are not court proceedings but rather an exercise of congressional oversight, operating under the principle of separation of powers, and having its basis in Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution: “The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure...”
(Lawyer Ian Afredo Magno is an associate at the Francis U. Ku & Associates, and deputy legal officer at Philhealth. E-mail: ianalfredom@gmail.com)
