Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
evidence. The judge erred in taking cognizant of a law that was not
yet in force and ordered the dismissal of the case without giving the
the doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of prosecution the right to be heard and of due process. The court
the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the ordered for the dismissal of the judge from service for gross
courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion for dismissing the
exists; and reasonable doubt on the subject should be resolved in the case motu proprio and for erring in exercising his discretion to take
negative judicial notice on matters that are hearsay and groundless with a
reminder the power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the
Facts: The state prosecutors who are members of the DOJ Panel of courts with caution at all times.
Prosecution filed a complaint against respondent Judge Muro on the
ground of ignorance of the law, grave misconduct and violation of the ALVAREZ vs. RAMIREZ
provisions in the Code of Judicial Conduct. The case at bar involves
the prosecution of the 11 charges against Imelda Marcos in violation FACTS: Respondent Susan Ramirez was the complaining witness in
of the Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restriction in the Central a criminal case or arson pending before the RTC. The accused was
Bank Circular 960. The respondent judge dismissed all 11 cases petitioner Maximo Alvarez, stranged husband of Esperanza Alvarez,
solely on the basis of the report published from the 2 newspapers, sister of respondent. On June 21, 1999, Esperanza Alvarez was
which the judge believes to be reputable and of national circulation, called to the witness stand as the first witness against petitioner, her
that the Pres. of the Philippines lifted all foreign exchange husband. Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify Esperanza from
restrictions. The respondents decision was founded on his belief that testifying against him pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of
the reported announcement of the Executive Department in the Court on marital disqualification.
newspaper in effect repealed the CB 960 and thereby divested the
court of its jurisdiction to further hear the pending case thus motu Respondent filed an opposition to the motion. Pending resolution of
propio dismissed the case. He further contends that the the motion, the trial court directed the prosecution to proceed with the
announcement of the President as published in the newspaper has presentation of the other witnesses. On September 2, 1999, the trial
made such fact a public knowledge that is sufficient for the judge to court issued the questioned Order disqualifying Esperanza Alvarez
take judicial notice which is discretionary on his part. from further testifying and deleting her testimony from the records.
The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied in
The complainants contend that the respondent judge erred in taking the other assailed Order dated October 19, 1999. This prompted
judicial notice on matters he purported to be a public knowledge respondent to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari
based merely on the account of the newspaper publication that the with application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
Pres. has lifted the foreign exchange restriction. It was also an act of order. On May 31, 2000, the Appellate Court rendered a Decision
inexcusable ignorant of the law not to accord due process to the nullifying and setting aside the assailed Orders issued by the trial
prosecutors who were already at the stage of presenting evidence court. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
thereby depriving the government the right to be heard. The judge
also exercised grave abuse of discretion by taking judicial notice on ISSUE: Whether or not Esperanza can testify over the objection of
the published statement of the Pres. In the newspaper which is a her estranged husband on the ground of marital privilege.
matter that has not yet been officially in force and effect of the law.
HELD: Yes, Esperanza may testify over the objection of her
Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse husband. The disqualification of a witness by reason of marriage
of discretion in taking judicial notice on the statement of the president under Sec. 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court has its
lifting the foreign exchange restriction published in the newspaper as exceptions as where the marital relations are so strained that there is
basis for dismissing the case? no more harmony to be preserved. The acts of the petitioner stamp
out all major aspects of marital life. On the other hand, the State has
Ruling:The Supreme Court held the respondent judge guilty for gross an interest in punishing the guilty and exonerating the innocent, and
ignorance of the law. It cannot comprehend his assertion that there is must have the right to offer the testimony of Esperanza over the
no need to wait for the publication of the circular no. 1353 which is objection of her husband.
the basis of the Presidents announcement in the newspaper,
believing that the public announcement is absolute and without PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. COURT
qualification and is immediately effective and such matter becomes a OF APPEALS and MARIA EFIGENIA FISHING CORPORATION
public knowledge which he can take a judicial notice upon in his [G.R. No. 107518. October 8, 1998]
discretion. It is a mandatory requirement that a new law should be
published for 15 days in a newspaper of general circulation before its Facts: This is a civil case for damages arising from a sea collision
effectivity. When the Presidents statement was published in the incident when plaintiff's tanker hit respondent's fishing boat, causing
newspaper, the respondent admitted of not having seen the official the boat to sink.
text of CB circular 1353 thus it was premature for him to take judicial
notice on this matter which is merely based on his personal The lower court and CA ruled in favor of respondent on the basis of
knowledge and is not based on the public knowledge that the law documentary exhibits presented, mainly the price quotations. These
requires for the court to take judicial notice of. price quotations were issued personally to Del Rosario who
requested for them from dealers of equipment similar to the ones lost
For the court to take judicial notice, three material requisites should at the collision of the two vessels. However, these are not published
be present: in any list, register, periodical or other compilation nor containing
(1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge; data of everyday professional need and relied upon in the work of the
(2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or occupation.T
uncertain;
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Issue: Are price quotations considered commercial list, thus can be
court. admissible in evidence?
The fact that should be assumed as judicially known must be on such Held: NO. Price quotations are not within the purview of commercial
notoriety that such fact cannot be disputed. Judicial notice is not lists as these are not standard handbooks or periodicals, containing
judicial knowledge where the personal knowledge of the judge does data of everyday professional need and relied upon in the work of the
not amount to the judicial notice of the court. The common occupation.These are simply letters responding to the queries of Del
knowledge contemplated by the law where the court can take judicial Rosario.
notice must come from the knowledge of men generally in the course
of ordinary experiences that are accepted as true and one that The price quotations are ordinary private writings which under the
involves unquestioned demonstration. The court ruled that the Revised Rules of Court should have been proffered along with the
information he obtained from the newspaper is one of hearsay testimony of the authors thereof. Del Rosario could not have testified
on the veracity of the contents of the writings even though he was the disbarment proceedings under Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules
seasoned owner of a fishing fleet because he was not the one who of Court.
issued the price quotations.
Said provision of the Rules of Court is not a restriction on
A document is a commercial list if: the freedom of the press. If there is a legitimate public interest, media
(1) it is a statement of matters of interest to persons engaged in an is not prohibited from making a fair, true, and accurate news report of
occupation; a disbarment complaint. In the absence of a legitimate public interest
(2) such statement is contained in a list, register, periodical or other in a disbarment complaint, members of the media must preserve the
published compilation; (3) said compilation is published for the use of confidentiality of disbarment proceedings during its pendency.
persons engaged in that occupation, and
(4) it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the same As to Quinsayas, he is bound by Section 18, Rule 139-B
occupation. both as a complainant in the disbarment case against petitioner and
as a lawyer. As a lawyer and an officer of the Court, Quinsayas is
familiar with the confidential nature of disbarment proceedings.
However, instead of preserving its confidentiality, he disseminated
Fortun v. Quinsayas, et.al. copies of the disbarment complaint against petitioner to members of
the media which act constitutes contempt of court. The premature
(Confidentiality Rule in Disbarment Proceedings; Exception) disclosure by publication of the filing and pendency of
Facts: Petitioner Atty. Philip Sigfrid Fortun, the lead defense counsel disbarment proceedings is a violation of the confidentiality rule.
of Ampatuan, Jr. in the prominent "Maguindanao Massacre Case,"
filed this present petition for contempt against Atty. Prima Jesusa The purpose of the rule is not only to enable this Court to
Quinsayas, et.al., including media men and broadcasting companies. make its investigations free from any extraneous influence or
interference, but also to protect the personal and professional
Quinsayas, et.al. filed a disbarment case against Fortun for reputation of attorneys and judges from the baseless charges of
dishonest and deceitful conduct violative of the Code of Professional disgruntled, vindictive, and irresponsible clients and litigants. It is also
Responsibility. They alleged that Fortun is "engaging in activities to deter the press from publishing administrative cases or portions
misleading the prosecution and the trial court." Pending the thereto without authority.
disbarment case, Quinsayas was invited to a show "ANC Presents:
Crying for Justice: the Maguindanao Massacre," where he discussed In view thereof, the court found Quinsayas liable for indirect
the disbarment case against Fortun, including its principal points. contempt of court, with a fine of P20,000.
This tempted Fortun to file this present petition against him and
various media men and companies. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
MARIO TANDOY y LIM, Defendant-Appellant.
Fortun alleged that Quinsayas, et al. actively disseminated
the details of the disbarment complaint against him in violation of FACTS: On May 27, 1986, at about 3:30 p.m. Lt. Salido, Jr. of the
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on the confidential nature of Makati Police Station dispatched Pfc. Herino de la Cruz, and
disbarment proceedings. Petitioner further alleged that respondent Detectives Pablo R. Singayan, Nicanor Candolesas, Luisito de la
media groups and personalities conspired with Quinsayas, et al. by Cruz, Estanislao Dalumpines, Antonio Manalastas and Virgilio Padua
publishing the confidential materials on their respective media to conduct a buy-bust operation at Solchuaga St., Barangay
platforms. He said that the public circulation of the disbarment Singkamas, Makati.
complaint against him exposed this Court and its investigators to The target area was a store along the said street, and Singayan was
outside influence and public interference. to pose as the buyer. He stood alone near the store waiting for any
pusher to approach. The other members of the team strategically
In their comments, respondents, among others, contended positioned themselves. Soon, three men approached Singayan. One
that the filing of the disbarment complaint against petitioner was of them was the accused-appellant, who said without preamble:
already the subject of widespread news and already of public "Pare, gusto mo bang umiskor?" Singayan said yes. The exchange
knowledge, and that petitioner is a public figure and the public has a was made then and there two rolls/pieces of marijuana for one
legitimate interest in his doings, affairs, and character. P10.00 and two P5.00 bills marked ANU (meaning Anti-Narcotics
Unit).
Issue: Whether or not respondents violated the confidentiality rule in The team then moved in and arrested Tandoy. Manalastas and
disbarment proceedings, warranting a finding of guilt for indirect Candolesas made a body search of the accused-appellant and took
contempt of court. from him the marked money, as well as eight more rolls/foils of
marijuana and crushed leaves.: nad
Held: Quinsayas violated the confidentiality rule, but the media men The arresting officers brought Tandoy to the Office of the Anti-
and companies are not liable thereto. Narcotics Unit, Makati Police Station, for investigation by Detective
Marvin Pajilan. The accused-appellant chose to remain silent after
The Court recognizes that publications which are privileged having been informed of his constitutional rights.
for reasons of public policy are protected by the constitutional These events were narrated under oath by De la Cruz, Singayan and
guaranty of freedom of speech. As a general rule, disbarment Pajilan. Microscopic, chemical and chromotographic examination
proceedings are confidential in nature until their final resolution and was performed on the confiscated marijuana by Raquel P. Angeles,
the final decision of this Court. In this case, however, the filing of a forensic chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation, who later
disbarment complaint against petitioner is itself a matter of public testified that the findings were positive. The marijuana was offered as
concern considering that it arose from the Maguindanao Massacre an exhibit.
case. The interest of the public is not on petitioner himself but
primarily on his involvement and participation as defense counsel in ISSUES:
the case. Indeed, the allegations in the disbarment complaint relate 1. The Court a quo erred in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable
to petitioners supposed actions involving the Maguindanao Massacre doubt of the crime charged despite lack of evidence to prove that he
case. Since petitioner is a public figure or has become a public sold marijuana to the poseur-buyer.
figure because he is representing a matter of public concern, 2. The Court a quo erred in admitting in evidence against the
and because the event itself that led to the filing of the accused Exh. "E-2-A" which is merely a xerox copy of the P10.00 bill
disbarment case against petitioner is a matter of public concern, allegedly used as buy-bust money.
the media has the right to report the filing of the disbarment
case as legitimate news. It would have been different if the RULING:
disbarment case against petitioner was about a private matter as the The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of
media would then be bound to respect the confidentiality provision of the witnesses and to listen to their respective testimonies, gave more
credence to the statements of the arresting officers. Applying the Held: No. The respondents claim that the admission of the text
presumption that they had performed their duties in a regular messages as evidence against him constitutes a violation of his right
manner, it rejected Tandoy's uncorroborated allegation that he had to privacy is unavailing. Text messages have been classified as
been manhandled and framed. Tandoy had not submitted sufficient ephemeral electronic communication under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of
evidence of his charges, let alone his admission that he had no the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and shall be proven by the
quarrel with the peace officers whom he had met only on the day of testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal
his arrest. knowledge thereof. Any question as to the admissibility of such
We are convinced from the evidence on record that the prosecution messages is now moot and academic, as the respondent himself, as
has overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of well as his counsel, already admitted that he was the sender of the
the accused-appellant with proof beyond reasonable doubt of his first three messages on Atty. Madarangs cell phone.
guilt. He must therefore suffer the penalty prescribed by law for those
who would visit the scourge of drug addiction upon our people.
Under the second assigned error, the accused-appellant invokes the
best evidence rule and questions the admission by the trial court of This was also the ruling of the Court in the recent case of Zaldy Nuez
the xerox copy only of the marked P10.00 bill.:This assigned error v. Elvira Cruz-Apao. In that case, the Court, in finding the respondent
centers on the trial court's admission of the P10.00 bill marked therein guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct, considered text
money (Exh. E-2-A) which, according to the appellant, is excluded messages addressed to the complainant asking for a million pesos in
under the best evidence rule for being a mere xerox copy. exchange for a favorable decision in a case pending before the CA.
Apparently, appellant erroneously thinks that said marked money is The Court had the occasion to state:
an ordinary document falling under Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules of Court which excludes the introduction of secondary The text messages were properly admitted by the Committee
evidence except in the five (5) instances mentioned therein.:-cralaw since the same are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules
The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the on Electronic Evidence, which provides:
document are the subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to
Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone
whether or not such document was actually executed, or exists, or in
conversations, text messages and other electronic forms of
the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.
Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution
solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
contents, other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is vs.ROGELIO DE JESUS y QUIZON, alias "ELIONG," accused-
therefore admissible without the need of accounting for the original. appellant.
Subsequently, Rogelio de Jesus was surrendered by his brother-in- That complainant possesses such a low mental capacity, to the
law, a councilor to the Alicia Police Department. He executed an extent of being incapable of giving consent, could be gleaned from
affidavit, Exhibit "D" subscribed before Alicia Municipal Judge Flor the fact, as testified to by her mother, that she is unable to do the
Egipto on January 5, 1974, admitting that he had sexual intercourse simple tasks of combing her hair and bathing herself. Thus, even
once with Clara Mina, but denying that he raped her (p. 7, record). granting it to be true, as counsel has insinuated, that complainant
had submitted to the sexual act without resistance (p. 9 Appellant's
Brief) such cannot be construed as consent on her part, so as to
The accused denied that he had forced the complainant to have
preclude it from being rape. Incapable of giving consent, she could
sexual intercourse with him and that he only inserted his forefinger
not thus consent in intelligently. 5
inside the complainant's private parts. He testified that he admitted
having sexual intercourse once with complainant in his
affidavit 1 because of maltreatment employed upon him by the jail WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
guards.
Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro
While the affidavit executed by the accused is not admissible in and Escolin, JJ., concur.
evidence for lack of evidence showing that the accused during the
custodial investigation was apprised of his constitutional rights under
Art. IV, Sec. 20, of the New Constitution, 2 still there is sufficient
evidence on record that the accused had performed the sexual act to
wit: t.hqw
1. The accused testified that he merely inserted his forefinger into the
complainant's vagina to cure her of her mental malady. The records,
however show, from the testimony of both the prosecution and the
defense, that the accused laid on top of complainant. If appellant's
purpose was merely to insert his forefinger into the complainant's
vagina, then there is no necessity of lying on top of complainant.