2025 Syllabus Based Evidence Reviewer: Liberal construction of the Rules on Evidence Judicial Notice (RULE 129)

 

What need not be proved; matters of judicial notice

 

What is Judicial Notice

1) Judicial notice is the cognizance or deal of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof because these facts are already known to them.

2) Put differently, it is the assumption by a court of a fact without need of further traditional evidentiary support. The principle is based on convenience and expediency in securing and introducing evidence on matters which are not ordinarily capable of dispute and are not bona fide disputed [Republic v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 152375 December 16, 2011].

Latin Maxim to remember: Manifesta probatione non indigent [Manifest things require no proof.]

b. Rationale for judicial notice The taking of judicial notice is a matter of expediency and convenience for it fulfills the purpose that the evidence is intended to achieve, and in this sense, it is equivalent to proof [Degayo v. Dinglasan GR No. 173148 April 6, 2015].

It would be superfluous, inconvenient, and expensive both to parties and the court to require proof, in the ordinary way, of facts which are already known to them [People v. Rullepa, GR No. 131516, March 5, 2003].

Note: Insistence on not taking judicial notice might lead to absurd results.
Ex: There is an American plaintiff. He filed a case against a Filipino.

 

Judicial Notice when Mandatory

 

Under the Amended Rules of Court [A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC]

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the National Government of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.

Actually it is 99% similar, except that there is a change on the qualification on what legislative, executive and judicial department does this refer to. The Supreme Court. Notice “National Government of”.

Importance of Clarifying that it is the legislative, executive and judicial departments “National Government of” the Philippines It is the official government of the National government contrasted with those of Local Governments only which are of mandatory judicial notice.

Example: While laws enacted by Congress fall within the purview of mandatory judicial notice, the same cannot be said, as a general rule, for ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of a city.

The one being clarified by the amendment is that it should be the "National Government of the Philippines". This rule should be committed to memory.

For the sake of unity and simplicity of discussion lets focus on Judicial notice of "laws"

What laws are subject of mandatory judicial notice?

1. The Law of nations
2. Laws as official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial department of the National Government of the Philippines
3. Ordinances
4. Laws of nature


LAW OF NATIONS

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that "the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations. (Sec. 2, Article II 1987 Constitution)

We know from our studies in Constitutional Law that that is the incorporation clause of the 1987 Constitution, whereby generally accepted principles of international law can be considered as part of the law of the land. Remember that there are 2 modes by which international law can become part of the law of the land, first would be by way of incorporation and the second mode would be by way of transformation, meaning you have an international law which you have adopted into a local statute or if an international law/agreement that requires concurrence by congress then that would already be judicial notice of an official act of the legislative department of the Philippines.

With respect to international law to become generally accepted principles it requires 2 elements:

1. Widespread state practice among nations; and
2. Physiological Element: Opinio juris (belief that the international law is good)

The "law of nations" does not mean the "law of a particular nation" The existence of foreign law per se is not within the realm of mandatory judicial notice. Why? we have nothing to do with it. The Philippine Courts do not care about the law of a specific country.

Foreign laws present a QUESTION OF FACT. Thus, as a general rule, they may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proved. They have to be pleaded and proven as any other fact. If your defense is based on a foreign law then you have to properly state that in your pleading and proved it as in any other fact.

HOW TO PROVE FOREIGN LAW?
For written foreign law:

We follow the process stated in Sections 24 - 25 of Rule 132.

For unwritten foreign law:
We follow Section 48 of Rule 130 or the so-called learned treatises which is an exception to the rule on hearsay evidence.

Take note however of the following principles:
􀁸 A foreign law may be admitted without proof if it is subject of a judicial admission. So, if it is admitted by the other party then no need to prove

􀁸 In the absence of proof or admission, foreign law is presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines. Under the doctrine of PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION.

CONDON v. COMELEC G.R. No. 19874, August 10, 2012

FACTS: Maja was the winning vice-mayoralty candidate of Caba, La Union. A petition for quo warranto was filed against her on the ground that she is a dual citizen, who under R.A. No. 9225, must execute a sworn renunciation of her Australian citizenship. Maja answered that, when she executed a declaration of renunciation of Australian citizenship in Australia, she is deemed to have lost her foreign citizenship. She wanted the Court to take judicial notice of the laws of Australia regarding loss of citizenship. She also contended that the mere act of running for public office is a clear abandonment of her foreign citizenship, citing Valles vs. COMELEC.

HELD: Foreign laws are NOT a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proven. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.

LAWS AS OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT All judges are presumed to know ALL statutes and their status - whether the same are still effective or have already been repealed or amended.

LEGISLATIVE ACTS OTHER THAN LAW

􀁸 In Chavez vs. PEA, a senate investigation report is deemed covered by mandatory judicial notice.

􀁸 Congressional debates and other records that predicated the passage of the law are matters considered to be official acts of Congress and are therefore within the realm of mandatory judicial notice.

Judges are supposed to take judicial notice of that also, so it helps that they watch those congressional hearings

OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AS LAW

Executive orders and presidential decrees have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power directly granted to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to a valid delegation of power to the President.

Example, the Family Code of the Philippines. The 1973 Constitution and the 1986 Provisional Constitution gave the President legislative powers. EO 09 was issued by President Aquino in 1987 after the present constitution was ratified. Under Article XVIII, Section 6, the incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is convened.

Presently, the President does not have anymore such delegated legislative power by default, it was only under the 1986 Provisional Constitution and the transitory provision of the 1987 Constitution.

Under the 1973 Constitution, the President, as prime minister, had legislative powers. During those times, the National Assembly, where laws are supposed to be made, became a mere rubber stamp of President Marcos. So, when President Marcos declares this and declares that, the Assembly will simply give it an imprimatur and pass it on as their own law. But during that time, I would suppose that President Marcos simply had complete control of the government- Executive, Legislative, and, to a certain extent, Judiciary. That’s absolute power. And remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Pasei vs. Torres tells you about dichotomy. If it is not the result of a delegated power, it will not be taken as judicial notice. So, to form part of the law of the land, the decree, order or LOI must be issued by the President in the exercise of his extraordinary power of legislation as contemplated in Section 6 of the 1976 Amendments to the 1973 Constitution. So, not all. Okay? Only those result of a valid delegation of power.

In the case of Sañado vs. CA, the action of an administrative agency in granting or denying, or in suspending, or revoking a license, permit, franchise or certificate of public convenience is administrative or quasi-judicial. Decisions of the Office of the President are official acts of and are exercises of quasi-judicial powers of the executive department. They, thus, squarely fall under matters relative to the executive department which courts are mandatorily tasked to take judicial notice of under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. Judicial notice must be taken of the organization of the Executive Department, its principal officers, elected or appointed, such as the President, his powers and duties.

Now, let’s go to that phrase “Certificate of public Convenience.”

A certificate of public convenience allows you to operate a franchise.

As to ABS-CBN, when their franchise was not renewed, they were issued Cease and Desist Order by the National Telecommunication Commission. And according to NTC, despite the fact that there are plenty of precedents to the contrary that a tv station or radio station cannot continue operating if their license has expired and it cannot give it provisional authority to continue broadcasting. Definitely, if that is a decision, whether in administrative of quasijudicial function of the NTC, diba ang dapat nga administrative remedy diha is an Appeal to the Office of the President. But ABSCBN really never did that. Why? Because they are scared of President Duterte.

Let’s go to the case of Republic vs. Southside Homeowners Association, Inc.

What happened here? There’s this military reservation that was used to house military officers together with their families. And throughout the passage of time, they made a subdivision there. They were treating it already as private property. They even made a homeowners’ association, SHAI, not knowing that they cannot have it titled because it is actually part of a military reservation. And, in resolving this case, the Court took judicial notice of Proclamation 423 which actually made the land, where they were living in, a part of military reservation. Nuclear epic fail sila on their contention that it can be considered as property of public dominion.

Remember in Property, there is Property of the public domain or public dominion and you also have Property of private ownership. Remember that Property of Private ownership actually includes Patrimonial Property of the State. Patrimonial Property is reserved by the state for some commercial purposes. But that’s considered to be private property. And what would be the implication if you call it private property? It can be subject to Expropriation. Private property shall not be taken except for public use and payment of just compensation. Just a review.

Take note, however, of the case of Asian Terminal vs. Malayan Insurance Corp.

So, what happened here? In a case for damages, Asian Terminals was adjudged liable by the RTC in the amount of P643,600.25 for losses due to the mishandling of cargo. But Asian Terminals says that their liability should not be that big. Why? because under its management contract which was entered into between Asian Terminal and Philippine Ports Authority under the Department of Transportation and Communiaction (DOTC), its liability for losses due to mishandling of cargo is only P5,000 per package. So, let’s assume that there were 3 packages. And then, they mishandled it and the cargo was lost. And it’s worth 600,000 plus. But under their contract, since there are only 3 packages, only 15,000 should be paid. The contention seems to be like that. Asian Terminals urges the court to take judicial notice of the management contract as an official act of an executive department as the PPA being under the DOTC.

According to the Supreme Court, the Management Contract entered into by Asian Terminals and PPA is NOT among the matters which the Court can take judicial notice of. It cannot be considered an official act of the executive department. And obviously, the PPA was only performing a proprietary function when it entered into a Management Contract with Asian Terminals. As such, judicial notice cannot be applied.

With respect to the functions of the executive department of the national government of the Philippines, you have to draw a distinction:

􀁸 If it is a governmental function that is being performed by the government through any of its instrumentalities- courts would take judicial notice on that.

􀁸 If it is only performing a proprietary function- the court will NOT take judicial notice on that.

So, that’s a very short principle that you can easily remember.


POWER OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
Now, let’s go to the Power of Executive Clemency. It has several forms like Pardon, Amnesty, Commutation of Sentence, and so on and so forth.

Q: Are all the exercises by the President of his power of executive clemency subject to mandatory judicial notice?
A: No.

To answer this, we have the case of People vs. Casido (March 7, 1997). Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned because courts take no judicial notice thereof. That’s with respect to Pardon only. But when you talk about amnesty by the proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, that is a public act of which the court should take judicial notice.

Remember the event regarding Trillanes? Of course, he was a very vocal opponent of President Duterte. At one time, the Department of Justice is saying that “we have no proof that he has actually been amnestied.” But later on in one case, we will learn that the Supreme Court actually took judicial notice of the fact that Trillanes and company have already been given Amnesty.

1. Pardon- no judicial notice
2. Amnesty- should be taken judicial notice of. (being a public act)

OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Now, official acts of Judicial Department. The best example for that are the Rules of Court, other Supreme Court issuances , as well as the cases decided by the Supreme Court. Courts should take judicial notice of Supreme Court decisions but not blindly because whether or not to apply a ruling to a controversy is still subject to the judicial determination. Remember, cases decided by the Supreme Court, the doctrine might be applicable but whether that doctrine is completely in all-fours of the issue in the case, factual determination should be required.

ORDINANCES
􀁸 While courts are required to take judicial notice of the laws enacted by Congress, the rule with respect to local ordinances is different.

􀁸 Ordinances are not included in the enumeration of matters covered by mandatory judicial notice under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court. (SJS v Atienza, GR No. 156052, February 13, 2008).

􀁸 Also take note of the amendment in Section 1 Rule 129 – “Legislative act of the National Government of the Philippines”. So only laws enacted by Congress are subject of mandatory judicial notice.

􀁸 The rule with respect to local ordinances or laws enacted by the Sanggunians of the different cities and municipalities, they’re not included in the enumeration of matters covered by mandatory judicial notice. However, there is a lot of doctrines that exist which actually allow judicial notice of ordinance.

What are these doctrines? For the sake of simplicity, these are the Rules on Judicial Notice of Ordinances.

􀁸 MTC – required to take judicial notice of ordinances of the municipality or city wherein they sit.

􀁸 RTC – must take judicial notice only: o When required to do so by statute (example: charter of a city, just like SJS v Atienza) o In a case of appeal before them wherein the inferior court took judicial notice of an ordinance involved in said case; Meaning, the MTC took judicial notice of the ordinance, the RTC cannot require the parties to present proof of the ordinance on appeal (remember the rule in Civil Procedure that when the RTC takes a case on appeal, or determines a case under its appellate jurisdiction, it should not conduct a trial de novo).

When capable of unquestionable demonstration

Meaning, it is really of public knowledge, nationally. The perfect example would be the anti-smoking ordinance of davao city. It’s not only in the Philippines that this is very notorious, but also internationally.

SJS v Atienza GR No. 156052, February 13, 2008

Even where there is a statute that requires a court to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances, a court is not required to take judicial notice of ordinances that are not before it and to which it does not have access. The party asking the court to take judicial notice is obligated to supply the court with the full text of the rules the party desires it to have notice of. Counsel should take the initiative in requesting that a trial court take judicial notice of an ordinance even where a statue requires courts to take judicial notice of local ordinances. The intent of a statute requiring a court to take judicial notice of a local ordinance is to remove any discretion a court might have in determining whether or not to take notice of an ordinance. Such a statute does not direct the court to act on its own in obtaining evidence for the record and a party must make the ordinance available to the court for it to take notice. Here, the SC said that if you want the court to take judicial notice of a particular municipal ordinance, then give a copy to the trial court, so that the trial court can take judicial notice of it.

LAWS OF NATURE

In my book I discuss about how Abraham Lincoln (Vampire Slayer and Lawyer) used a Farmer's Almanac to prove that there was no illumination from the moon at the time of the alleged commission of the crime; here what was applied was the Law of Nature to which the Court took judicial notice of allowing Lincoln to secure an acquittal for his client.

People vs. Meneses GR No. 111742, March 26, 1998

It was established that the crime took place in the wee hours of the morning, before the crack of dawn, at around three o’clock. The court can take judicial notice of the “laws of nature,” such as in the instant case, that at around three in the morning during the Christmas season, it is still quite dark and that daylight comes rather late in this time of year. Nowhere in the description of the crime scene by witness SPO3 Mendoza in his testimony was it established that there was light or illumination of any sort by which Christopher could see the attacker. Judicial notice will overrule testimony.

One of my most favorite cases. Here according to the witness, there were colliding vehicles. He heard a collision, when he approached, he saw the car colliding. So, what’s going to come first the lightning or the thunder? Of course, light travels faster than sound. But no, what is this? Does the sound of the collision come before the collision itself? So, epic fail.

 

Judicial Notice, When Discretionary.

 

Section 2. Judicial Notice, When Discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. (2)

Let’s first try to distinguish between Section 1 and Section 2:

You can even make a case that if the court does not take judicial notice of a matter that is covered by Section 1, it would simply mean that that court is actually neglecting to perform a ministerial duty. To my mind, when it comes to Section 1, there will always be the possibility that the judge or the court might be liable in mandamus. Can be compelled because that is a ministerial duty.

But with respect to Section 2, because of course there is exercise of discretion and it is not mandatory as is meant by the word “may”. It is purely within the judgment or the discretion of the court whether or not to take judicial notice.

It is termed discretionary because it depends on the judgment of the court. No party can compel another to take judicial notice of a matter because it is not one of the mandatory objects of judicial notice in Section 1.

Requisites:
1. The matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
2. It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
3. It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

What does “common knowledge” mean? The concept of "facts of common knowledge" in the context of judicial notice has been explained as those facts that are "so commonly known in the community as to make it unprofitable to require proof, and so certainly known x x x as to make it indisputable among reasonable men." (Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago vs. COMELEC)

Take note of the phraseology of the SC there. “Unprofitable to require proof” - meaning, you won't get anything if you still require proof on this matter.
Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012

FACTS: Petitioner Magdalo sa Pagbabago (MAGDALO) filed its Petition for Registration with the COMELEC, seeking its registration and/or accreditation as a regional political party based in the National Capital Region (NCR) for participation in the 10 May 2010 National and Local Elections.

Remember, if you are a political part, if you are duly registered, you are accorded certain rights under the Omnibus Election Code.

The COMELEC denied their petition for registration as a political party. Why? It took judicial notice that (1) Magdalo was responsible for the Oakwood Mutiny; and (2) that it employed violence and used unlawful means “to achieve their goals in the process defying the laws of organized societies.”

We know, that under Election Law, if you are such an organization, you employ violence and use unlawful means to achieve your objectives, what will happen? You will be denied registration.

Magdalo posited that the COMELEC cannot take judicial notice of those facts. Magdalo contended that it was grave abuse of discretion for the COMELEC to have denied the Petition for Registration not on the basis of facts or evidence on record, but on mere speculation and conjectures. It is said that the Madgalo employed violence is just a joke, etc.

ISSUE: Was the COMELEC correct in taking judicial notice of those facts?

RULING: YES. This Court has, in a string of cases, already taken judicial notice of the factual circumstances surrounding the Oakwood standoff. xxx That the Oakwood incident was widely known and extensively covered by the media made it a proper subject of judicial notice. Thus, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it treated these facts as public knowledge, and took cognizance thereof without requiring the introduction and reception of evidence thereon.

So, it took judicial notice. Why? Because according to the COMELEC, we will not get anything if we require proof on this matter. Why do we need to require proof when in fact it was so commonly known to everybody that Magdalo was actually responsible for the Oakwood Mutiny.

As publicly announced by the leaders of MAGDALO (prominently Antonio Trillanes) during the siege, their objectives were to express their dissatisfaction with the administration of former President Arroyo, and to divulge the alleged corruption in the military and the supposed sale of arms to enemies of the state. Ultimately, they wanted the President, her cabinet members, and the top officials of the AFP and the PNP to resign. To achieve these goals, MAGDALO opted to seize a hotel occupied by civilians, march in the premises in full battle gear with ammunitions, and plant explosives in the building. These brash methods by which MAGDALO opted to ventilate the grievances of its members and withdraw its support from the government constituted clear acts of violence.

And practically everyone knows about it. That’s clearly constitutive of violence as would deny Magdalo registration as a political party. The SC, at the very least, upheld COMELEC’s taking judicial notice of Magdalo and its participation in the Oakwood Mutiny.

BUT… In the same manner that this Court takes cognizance of the facts surrounding the Oakwood incident, it also takes judicial notice of the grant of amnesty in favor of the soldiers who figured in this standoff. xxx

In view of the subsequent amnesty granted in favor of the members of MAGDALO, the events that transpired during the Oakwood incident can no longer be interpreted as acts of violence in the context of the disqualifications from party registration.

SC took judicial notice of two relevant matters in the case:

1. That Magdalo employed violence [Oakwood Mutiny]
2. It also took judicial notice of the grant of amnesty in favor of the soldiers including their public spokesman Trillanes.

So, there is double judicial notice in this case.

[Discussion about amnesty of Trillanes raised in another case when
DOJ question if Trillanes was in fact given amnesty]

In amnesty, the offense is completely obliterated. There is no more
offense.

As opposed to pardon which is a private act by the President that
needs to be pleaded and proved, amnesty is subject to
mandatory judicial notice as an official act of the executive
branch of the National Government of the Philippines with the
concurrence of the legislative branch.

What did the SC do here? It remanded the case to the RTC for
determination of facts as to whether or not there are really papers
as to whether Trillanes did or did not apply for amnesty.

In fact in the case of Magdalo, it already took judicial notice of the
amnesty. Trillanes figures prominently in this case. What is the
effect of taking judicial notice? No proof is already required. But
what did the SC do? The decision of the SC was really weird.