Short answer. Yes, within limits. Rule 132, Section 12 allows evidence that a witness was convicted by final judgment to impeach them, but only if the crime carried a penalty exceeding one year, or involved moral turpitude regardless of penalty. It is barred, though, once the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or its annulment.
What the law says
evidence that he or she has been convicted by final judgment of a crime shall be admitted if (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one [ ] year; or (b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty
Rule 132, Section 12 — Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime. Read the full provision →
What the law says
evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction
Rule 132, Section 12 — Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime. Read the full provision →
The two ways a prior conviction qualifies
Section 12 sets two independent gateways for using a witness's prior conviction to impeach them. The first looks at the penalty: the crime must have been punishable by a penalty in excess of one year. The second looks at the nature of the offense: it must have involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty actually imposed. A witness's conviction only needs to satisfy one of these two, not both, before it can be offered to attack credibility.
Why 'by final judgment' is not a throwaway phrase
The rule requires that the witness have been convicted by final judgment. A pending case, an appealed conviction that has not become final, or a mere accusation does not satisfy this. Using an unfinished case to attack a witness's credibility risks unfairly branding someone as a convict before the legal process has actually settled the question, which is exactly what the finality requirement is meant to prevent.
The amnesty and annulment carve-out
Even a conviction that otherwise qualifies loses its usefulness for impeachment once it has been the subject of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction. Amnesty in particular is meant to wipe away not just the penalty but the legal consequences of the offense, including its later use against the person — so the law does not let a party revive a pardoned or annulled conviction for the narrower purpose of discrediting the person on the stand.
What this means for someone with a record who has to testify
A witness with a past conviction should not assume it is automatically off-limits, nor assume it will automatically be used against them. The relevant questions are whether the conviction is final, whether the underlying offense meets either the penalty threshold or the moral-turpitude standard, and whether it has since been covered by amnesty or annulled. Someone unsure where their own record falls on these questions should raise it with counsel before testifying, rather than being caught by it during cross-examination.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 12 — Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime
- Rule 132, Section 11 — Impeachment of adverse party s witness
- Rule 132, Section 13 — Party may not impeach his or her own witness