“the doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of
the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the courts
with caution; care must be taken that the requisite
notoriety exists; and reasonable doubt on the subject should be resolved in
the negative”
Facts:
The state prosecutors who are
members of the DOJ Panel of Prosecution filed a complaint against respondent
Judge Muro on the ground of ignorance of the law, grave misconduct and
violation of the provisions in the Code of Judicial Conduct. The case at bar
involves the prosecution of the 11 charges against Imelda Marcos in violation
of the Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restriction in the Central Bank Circular
960. The respondent judge dismissed all 11 cases solely on the basis of the
report published from the 2 newspapers, which the judge believes to be
reputable and of national circulation, that the Pres. of the Philippines lifted
all foreign exchange restrictions. The respondent’s decision was founded on his
belief that the reported announcement of the Executive Department in the
newspaper in effect repealed the CB 960 and thereby divested the court of its
jurisdiction to further hear the pending case thus motu propio dismissed the
case. He further contends that the announcement of the President as published
in the newspaper has made such fact a public knowledge that is sufficient for
the judge to take judicial notice which is discretionary on his part.
The complainants contend that
the respondent judge erred in taking judicial notice on matters he purported to
be a public knowledge based merely on the account of the newspaper publication
that the Pres. has lifted the foreign exchange restriction. It was also an act
of inexcusable ignorant of the law not to accord due process to the prosecutors
who were already at the stage of presenting evidence thereby depriving the
government the right to be heard. The judge also exercised grave abuse of
discretion by taking judicial notice on the published statement of the Pres. In
the newspaper which is a matter that has not yet been officially in force and
effect of the law.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of
discretion in taking judicial notice on the statement of the president lifting
the foreign exchange restriction published in the newspaper as basis for
dismissing the case?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held the
respondent judge guilty for gross ignorance of the law. It cannot comprehend
his assertion that there is no need to wait for the publication of the circular
no. 1353 which is the basis of the President’s announcement in the newspaper,
believing that the public announcement is absolute and without qualification
and is immediately effective and such matter becomes a public knowledge which
he can take a judicial notice upon in his discretion. It is a mandatory
requirement that a new law should be published for 15 days in a newspaper of
general circulation before its effectivity. When the President’s statement was
published in the newspaper, the respondent admitted of not having seen the
official 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 knowledge
and is not based on the public knowledge that the law requires for the court to
take judicial notice of.
For the court to take judicial
notice, three material requisites should be present:
(1) the matter must be one of common and general
knowledge;
(2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain;
(3) it must be known to be within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the court.
The fact that should be assumed
as judicially known must be on such notoriety that such fact cannot be
disputed. Judicial notice is not judicial knowledge where the personal
knowledge of the judge does not amount to the judicial notice of the court. The
common knowledge contemplated by the law where the court can take judicial
notice must come from the knowledge of men generally in the course of ordinary
experiences that are accepted as true and one that involves unquestioned
demonstration. The court ruled that the information he obtained from the
newspaper is one of hearsay 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 prosecution the right to be heard and of due process. The court
ordered for the dismissal of the judge from service for gross ignorance of the
law and grave abuse of discretion for dismissing the case motu proprio and for
erring in exercising his discretion to take judicial notice on matters that are
hearsay and groundless with a reminder the power to take judicial notice is to
be exercised by the courts with caution at all times.
No comments:
Post a Comment