Chapter IV. On the Obligations of Witnesses

I say 1st. No one is bound by justice spontaneously to offer himself for testifying; but sometimes there is given such an obligation from charity, for example, if someone can by his testimony easily free an innocent man, impede a grave injustice, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 264.

I say 2nd. A witness legitimately cited is bound to present himself before the judges, to pronounce the oath prescribed by law, to say the whole truth and nothing except the truth, and then to respond simply according to conscience to the things asked. The reason is that, a citation legitimately applied being supposed, an obligation arises by force of legal justice.

I say 3rd. A witness who maliciously has testified falsely is perjured and a violator of justice, if by his lie he positively influenced the harm of others; and therefore he is bound to reparation of all damages, and also to revocation of the false oath, even with equal damage to himself, even with danger of life, if by force of the false testimony an innocent man has been condemned to death. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 269.

Question 1. To what is a witness bound who said what was false from invincible ignorance, or from inculpable inadvertence or forgetfulness?

Resp. He is bound to disclose the false testimony and to impede the damage in that manner in which he can; nevertheless he is not bound to reparation of damage already following, since he is free from theological fault. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 269.

Question 2. When is a witness excused from giving testimony?

Resp. He is excused in the following cases: 1st. if he accepted the matter only under the secret of confession; 2nd. if he knew the matter under committed secrecy, even if it was not explicitly promised; 3rd. if he accepted the matter from men not worthy of faith; 4th. if he foresees that grave damage will come to himself or to his own. Except, however, with regard to the 2nd and 4th case if common damage threatens from it. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 268. - Lugo, de just. et jur., disp. 39, n. 12.

Question 3. Is a witness bound to reveal an altogether hidden crime, for example, one which he alone knows?

Resp. Affirmatively, according to the laws which establish that even one witness alone can suffice for condemning the accused. Cf. Kenrick, n. 123.

Question 4. Whether and how a witness sins who hides himself, lest he be cited by the judge, or who flees after citation?

Resp. A witness who hides himself lest he be cited sins neither against obedience, because no one is bound to obey the precept of a superior before it is imposed upon him, nor against commutative justice, because he conducts himself merely negatively. Yet he can sin against charity toward the neighbor, as was said above. But a witness who flees after citation sins gravely against legal justice and against obedience owed to the judge in a grave matter and one necessary to society; but more probably he does not sin against commutative justice, because that citation does not impose an obligation of justice, but only of obedience. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 270. - Vogler, n. 337.

Question 5. Is a witness bound to restitution who, legitimately questioned, conceals the truth, yet does not say what is false?

Resp. Negatively, probably, and the reason is that the witness then conducts himself merely negatively, nor is he bound to depose the truth except from the precept of the judge; and therefore, by concealing it then, he sins against only the obedience owed to the judge, or also against religion on account of the oath given about saying the truth. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid.