“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newspaper in effect repealed the CB 960 and thereby divested the court of its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.
