Short answer. For this purpose, no. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or an annulment of the conviction. It can no longer be used to attack the witness's credibility on the stand.
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 →
When a conviction can be used at all
Not every conviction is available for impeachment. For the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence that he or she has been convicted by final judgment of a crime is admitted in two situations: where the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one year, or where the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty. Two limits are built into that. The judgment must be final, so a case still under appeal does not qualify, and a minor offence outside those categories does not become usable merely because it is embarrassing.
The exclusion for amnesty and annulment
Against that, the rule then excludes what would otherwise be admissible. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or annulment of the conviction. This operates on the admissibility of the evidence rather than on its weight, so the position is not that the conviction simply counts for less. It does not come in for this purpose at all, and a witness in that position should not have to answer for the conviction on the stand.
Why the two are grouped together
An amnesty and an annulment of a conviction are different things, but the rule treats them the same way here because each unsettles the premise that makes a conviction useful as impeachment material. Impeachment by conviction rests on the assumption that a subsisting final judgment says something about the witness's credibility. Where the conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or has been annulled, that assumption no longer holds in the same way, and the rule declines to let the fact be used.
Raising it in practice
If you are calling a witness whose conviction falls within this exclusion, be ready to establish that fact, because the exclusion depends on the amnesty or annulment rather than on the conviction alone. If you are the one seeking to impeach, check both gates before relying on a conviction: that it meets one of the two admissibility categories, and that it has not been the subject of an amnesty or annulment. A conviction failing either test is not usable for this purpose.