STATE PROSECUTORS VS.

MURO
[236 SCRA 505, September 19, 1994]

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 respondents 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effect repealed the CB 960 and thereby divested the court of its jurisdiction to further hear the pending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 Presidents 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 Presidents 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.