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.
Comments
Post a Comment