T-

SEC. 1, RULE 129 }IVIDENCE 21

Where proffered evidence is of substantial probative value, ancl will

nct tend to prejudice or confuse the fact-finders, all doubt should be
resolved in favor of admissibility.rt
II
t WHAT NEED NOT BE PROVED
I
I RULE 129
r
tt Section 1. Judicial notiae, when ntandatory. A court shall take
judicial notice, rvithout the introduction of evidence, - the existence and
tenitorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationality, the larv of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history
I of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time,
I and the geographical divisions.
I 1. Judicial notice defined.
I 2. Basis of judicial notice.
3. Kinds of judicial notice.
prsitively identified by a credit'le rvitness. Pcople n*. Pcran,te, Jr., 149 SCRA 56;
Pco\tle oa. Abigan., lltlt SCRA 180; People as. I.ltlrlantors, gs SCRA 76li People os.
Herila, 51 SCRA 31 ; People as. Cobanit, 159 SCRA 94,
In rnany criminal cases one of the most important aids in completing the proof
of the conrmission of the crime by the aecused is the introduction of evidence dis-
elosing motive which tempted the mind to indulge in the aet. U.S. os. Carlos, 75
PhiI. t7, 51.
Evidence of circumstatrces tending to show that flight of one accused of an offense
rvas not because of sense of guilt or fear of arrest or to show motive consistent
with innocence, such as advice of friends, is admissible. Home Ins. Co. of New
York as. Tra.rnnr.ell, 160 So. 897, 930 Aln. 275.
The conduct, actions, and general behavior of the accused, immediatell' preceding
the homicide, are relevant to show that he was armed and in a various humor.
Kertnn as. State,65 lltcl.95g,4 A. 121*; Com. us. Ectton'8 PhiL (Pa.) 49s; Stutc,us.
Trankil, 71 S.C. 136, 50 S.E. 551,
The grounds on which the conduct and general demeanor of the accused after
the crime are held relevant is usually held +o be their indication of a corrsciousness
<rf guilt. Palm,er us. State (Ala. A) 73 S. 199.
The existenee of a plan or design to do a certain act, may properly be showrt
because it leads to an inference when the act is done, that'the same. is the result of
the plan or design. Cook os. Mocra, 11 Cttsh. 213.
Evidenee that a person has made a threat to commit a crime, is receivable g
against him, because it creates the probahility, onee the crime is eommitted, that
he is the author thereof. Stokes us. People, 59 N.Y. 175.
If the accused was the only one rvho had the opportunity to do the act charged,
such circumstance may be taken against him. Exclusive opportunity, however, is
not essentral. It is enough that the person charged had an opportunity to do the
act, if such circumstance, added to the chain of other ciroumstances, leads to the
irrference that he is really the author of such act, People 'os. Kamad., 51, O.G, 40.
T'he fact that the accused was seen near the place where the corpse lay was
considered as a circumstance against him. U,S. r:s. Aquino,27 Phil. 169; People tts.
I)ah.itto, G.i?. No. I'2067, Febraaty 26, 1951,
The unexplained fact that a man was found at a late hour of the night in a
room rvith another's wife, she being in bed and absent from her husband's home
without his consent, was held sufficient to sustain a conviction for the.crime of
adultery. U.S. .us. Legaspi, 14 PhiL 38.
lVhere a man and a woman accused of adultery were seen in scant apparel and
sleeping together, there was every opportunity for them to satisfy their adulterous
relations and that carnal knowledge did take place is in accord with all the probabi-
lities. U.,S. os, Felieiano, 36 PlLiI. 758.
21 U.S. vs. Allison, 414 F.2d 286, 289 (C.A. Sthla 19?3) citing Ilalt vs. U.S.,
342 I'. 2d 163 (C,A. sth Ga. 1965).

{,
 o, RULES OF COURT sEc. 1, RULE 1Z{'

4. Application of doctrine of judicial notice not confined to courts of record.

f. f:fiect of judiciat notiee on burden of proof.
6. Stip;ttt"n of parties cannot prevail.ovei operation of doctrine of judicial notice.
7. Mitters subjecl to mandatory judicial notice.
QUESTION t. What is iudtciul notice?
-
The term notice", means no nlol than tl-rrlt
ANSWER.
the court will bring- to its aid"judicial
and consider' without -ry9of of the facts,
itr t "o"'tuage of t"hose matters of public ccncet'n which are known by
all well-informed Persons.l
QUESTION 2. What is th'e obiect of iudicial notice'?
ANSWER. The obiect of jutticial notice is to save time, labor and
-
securtng and introducing evidence on matters which ane not
"*pu"r.ln .opJUt" 6t ai.putu antl ar[ not actually bona fide disputed, and
"tAi""rify
th; G;;. oC *rti.ii can- iafety be assumed from the tlibunal's general
i.**fuag" or from a slight search on its part. Judicial notice, is there-
p fore, baslcl upon convenience and expediency.l
QUESTION 3. What s're the t$nds oi iud'icial noticc?
-
* ANS\\rER. Th'e taking of judicial notice is ofastwothose kinds: man-
-
datory :ind discretionary. ti_ is manclatory insofal matters
iriumLrated under S""iiott 1, Rule 129 are concetned, but discretionary
*ao" Section 2 thereof on matters which are ofought publie knowledge, or
to be known to
*i- ."p"Uf" of unquestionable demonstration, or
judges because of their functions.s
QUESTION 4. Is the apphcation of the rule of iu'ilicial not'ice
-
confi,ned only to courts?
ANSWER. To take judicial notice tlnd apply it to the decision of
-
o .ui" ii a right *iti.1 appertains to every court of iustice,- from the
judicial,.notice
i;;;i, To tr.t" Iich.rt. The application of ihe doctrine of
is not'confined to-couits of recbra. Certain boards and special tribunats
which are not strictty courts but which partake of their nature and the
judicial
finai"g. *tti"tt p"itake of the nature bf judgments may take
notiee of"fcertain matters.a
QUESTION 5. What is the direct effect of iul,icial notice u,pon
-
the burden of prooing a fact?
ANSWER. The direct effect of jutlicial notice upon the burden
of proving a fact-is io ihe parties fiom the necessity of introducing
evidence 1o prove-the fact notic'ed.5 Judicial notice, i1 ils appropriate
"efieve
iield, displacis evidencr*in.u as it stands for proof,-it fulfills the objeet
*fri.ft is designed to fulfill and make^s evidence unnecessary'G
"uid"n.e
QUESTION 6. Mw stipulations of the.nlyt!.ep or their counsel
-
prrri,ii oner the operation of ihe doctrine of itr'dicial noti'ce?
ANSWER._No.StipulationsandadmissionsoftheP|r!ie:.o1
judicial
their counsel can p".u"ii over the operation of the doctrine of
"ot
t St"1[.. Kelly, 81 P. 460, ?1 Kan. 811, ?0 L.R.A' 450, 6 Ann' Cas' 298'
:;2 Wigmore on Evidenoe, Sec. 2565.
3Secs.'i and 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court, as amended' ..
riim vs. colecto"-of-cLito*i,' ,36 Phil. 4?2; International Harvester Co. vs.
Ur*[r,ig" li.er'iili- t i"J, &- ittit. 845 : Phil. llfanufacturing ..Co. vs. Union Ins'
s&i"ti 5f canton,4zlhii. a?8; Adong vs. cheong seng Gee,43 Phil.52.
r McKelvey on Evidence, 19.
oChiulla bu lu.u-i.. Uo"iiora Park Com'rs.,94 Conn. ?, 107 A.611' 612.
 sEc. 1, RULE 129 DVIDENCE ta

notice, and such stipulations :intl admissions :rre all subject to the operation
of the doctrine.i
QUESTION 7.
-
WhaL facts e,,.e subject to manclato,ry juilici,nt
ttotice? G.i'ue exam,ples of each.
AI.IS\VER. The court shall take judicial notice of the following:
-
. (ul Teryitotial ertant All cour'ts of justiee are bound to take judicial
notice of- the territorial extent
- of the jurisdiction exercised by the gove-rnment
the larvs of which they administer and o{ the extent and bounrlai.ics of thc
temitory u.der rvhich they themselves can exercise jurisdiction.n
. (bi cognizance
Gtnerql histot'11. Courts haye always and without exception taken
judicial rvithout- proof of those great historical events which have
affected the destiny of our nation or of othel nations. 'Ihe grounds of their
notice ale tho common knowledge and open fame of such lvents.e courhs
take j-udicial notice of the World lMar,lr) ihe countries involvetl therein,rr 16"
distrtrbances in btt-siness, industrial and financial affairs during and foliowing
said.u'ar';l: the Civii War betlveen thestates of the Union and its causes;t.r
the itrsurrection against the United States in the Philippines and the date of
its. inception.r'r It has been held that judicial r.rotice-may be taken of the
c'xistence-and purpose of the Makapili organization as matiers of public ncto-
riet5' and interest and as part of conternporary history,ro
(c) I'otttts oi goaernntent of statet. The rule must be taken with the
-
qualification that it relates only to such governments as have been reeognizecl
by- the home governmentlri The recognition of a for:eign gqover.nment is a
political rather than a judicial matter and thelejlore couits follolv the deter-
mination of the executive departrnent of the forum.r?
(d) SyrnboLs of natioualitd. In conformity to the law of
- governmerrt has recog:riz,r:d thenations all
eoults in a governnrent, rvhere that existence
qf a f<rleign nation, but not in the absence of such recognition, u'ill take
cognizauce of the flag and gleat sell of that nation or its plovinces,rs
(e) Luw ol nations. It is elenrentary that eourts notice thosc larvs
*'hich regulate the relations- of the dominant powers of the earth the law
of nations. While foreign municipal larvs must be proved as faets, -those rules
which by con'lmoll consent of mankind have been acquiesced in as larv stand
upon an entirely differcnt footing,rs
It is rvell-settled that foreign iarvs do not prove themselves .in our juris-
diction and our coults are not authorized to take judicial notice of them,
Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.2o
It must be stressed, horvever, that foreign statute accepted by the Bovernr
urent is subject to judicial notice.:]
(f) Adniralty cout'ts und. their sttel.s. No proof neetl be given of the
-
t Allen vs. State, (Aliz.) 130 P. 1114.
s 20 Am. Jur. 81.
$ I Jones on Evidence, Sec. 435.
r',U.S. vs. Flamburg-Amerikanishe, 239 U.S. 4{i6; i3ti S.Ct. 212.
rr Scheffners vs. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 909 lll. A. 81.
r2Canrpaignie de Corn. vs. Hanrbnrg-Amcrika, 36 Phil. li00; ln re ,Iustice Op.
201 lfas. 603, 122 N.E. ?C3; Ltrzon Brokerage Clo. vs. Luzon Labor Union, G.R. i
No. L-1?085, October 31, 1960.
Ir) Cuvler vs. Fer'ril, 6 Fed. Cascs No. 3523.
t1tl.S. vs. Tubig, 3 Phil. 244.
t; People vs. r\litagtag, G.R. No. L-924, A.rigusu 30, 194?.
t6 1 Jones on Evidcnce. p. 514.
t? Jones vs. U,S,, 13? U.q. 9{t!, 11 Sun (lt. 8(ii 1.,1nri'.rrlrill rs. Ilernantlcz. 168
U.S, 250, 18 Sup. Ct. 83.
rb 31 c.J.s. 6;J6.
r1i H;lton v-". (iuyot, 1i0 Lr.S, 1111, 40 L, ed. tll;, 1.6 S,Ct. 13it.
.r" The Collcctor of Internal Iievenue vs. Irisher,, et tr1., G.R. )ir.r. I"-1162; li'islrer,
ct al. vs. The Collcctot of Internai Rr:venue. et a., 1 SCRA 9;l; Yao Kee, et al. v:r"
Sy-(ionzales, et el., (i.R. Nc. L-55960, i'r-ovenrber 4, 1t188 I liuemer ys. H!x,54 f'hj1.
610; Adong vs. (llilong, "1:i Plril. 4il; Sjn:lh vs. R,pub1ic, il O"G. 5l?2.
1r Itt,public vs. (iirzrnzon, ti1 SCITA i:i60,

I
IA RULES OF COURT SDC. 1, RULN 129

seals of foreign rnaritime and admiralty courts. By cotnuloli conscttt and

general usage; the seal of a eourt of admiralty has been corlsidexed as
sufficiently authenticatinF its records.:::
(S) Political constittttion antl historlJ of th,c Philip1tines.. The court
takes-'jutlicial rxrtice of the fact that on Februaly 5, 1945, the-- saat of the
government
-eity of the so-called Philippine Repubiic had been ttansfen:erl to the
of Baguio, and that the commander-in-cheif of the Japanese Imperial
forces had iikei.'ise left the cii,y e1 Manila and that the Japanese Imperral
forces no longer had effective coirtrol ovel the City of Manila and ihe Province
of Rizal, as they had, been retreating to the mountains, pursued by- the United
States Army arid the Philippine Guerrilla forces, and, consequently, wrth the
loss of the effective control over the City of Manila and the Province of Rizal'
thc authority of the enenry forces of occupation had ipso facto ceased.-T
(h) fu[atters relatittg to the legi^';latiuc deTturtment. - Co^urts are bound
to taiie judicial notice, 4J a matter of la.,'r', of the dates rvhen C-ongress begins
uttd its session; the number, functions and plivilegrs of its members.
resc,tuilons of public charlcter passed by the legislature mtlst also btr
ioint"loJo"
judicially known.i'4
(i) Mutters re.la,tin.g to the anectttiae de7>artment. - Judicial_notice nrust
be taken of the organization of the Executive Department of-the Government;
its principal offioers elected or appointed, such as theztiPresi{ent, his porverr-s
and'4utie^s;:::, the vice-President and cabinet officers; hcads of Rureaus;':?
rvho is or !1.as at any time the chief Executive of the Philippines;:s the l)epa-rt-
ment Secretaries, juch officers as the Attorney-General;::rl and. -the In*'ular
Auditor.so Courts nray take judicial notice of the provincial officers within
their jurisdiction,sr of- the municipal officers of a city or torvn therein,$: 15
well as o{ their signaturss.:l3
(j) Ma,tterc relating-itsto the cou|ts of irt::tice. The Suprenre Cour:t iras
takeri" judicial notice of record in a previous case- in connection with tho
conduci of the litiganb or witness on a similar matter.s{ But the Suplcme'
courb does not taiie judicial notice of procecrlings in the various cour"ts ot
justice in the PhilipPinss.{tr'
The lach of jurisdiction appearing: upon the face of lhe record, tho
Supreme Court is bould to take notice thereof, and nray heaf ttrgutnents upon
the question, although no objection to the want of jurisdiclion was raisecl in
the court belorv.sti
.r2Thompson vs. Stewart, S Conn. 1?1,8 Am. Dec. 108; Yeaton vs. Fry, 5 cr.rnch
(U.S.) 335, 3 L. Ed. 117; and others'
ri Sameth vs. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil. 613.
s4McCarver vs. Herzberg, 120 Ala. 523,25 S.3; Kingman vs. Penobscot Coulltly
Comrs., 105 Me. 184.
While there are no adjudicated cases in this jurisdiction upon the exact question o-f
whether the courts may iake juclicial notice of the legislativa jou,rnals, it is rvell-
settled in the United Strt." that such journals may be noliced by the courts in
deterrnining the question rvhether a particulal
^The bill becarne a larv or not. (Strrte
ex rel. Herion vs. Smith,44 Ohio 48). result is that the larv and the adjudicatcd
cases make it our duty to take judicial notice of the tegislative journals. of the
.2 Ligislature of 1914. U.-S. a-s. Pons,34 Pllil' 7)9.
special session of the Philippine
e5 Canal Zone vs. Mena, Canal Zone 170'
:'a Perovich vs. Perry, 167 Feb. 78.
-Stet*
27 Backus Portable Fieater Co. vs. Simtnons, 2 App. (D'C') 220.
28Moon vs. Harrison,48 Phil.27.
m State vs. Board of State Canvassers, 32 Mont. 13' 79' p. 4C2.
so Daily vs. State, 171 Ind. 646.
erlongshore vs. State, ?6 S. 33: Wcbb vs' Iielsey,66 Ark. 1E0,49 S'W.819.
32 Himmelnran vs, Hoadley, 44 Cll, 213.
3s Ryan vs. Young, 14? Ala. 669' Hirnmelman vs' Hoadley, supra.
The- judicial notice of the proclamations was not an error on the part- of the
court becir:se Executive Proclamations are among the matters rvithin jrrdicial notice
under Section 1, Rule L29 of. the Rules of Court. Illtuticipality of 7'uctrt'ottg ts.
Abragan,22 SCRA 518.
3a Dizon vs. Pineda, G.R. No. L-346?9.
3i) Mortera and Eceiza vs. lvest of scotbn,l Insurancc office, 36 Phil. fic4.
36 Government vs. American Suretl' Co', 11 Phil. 20:i.
 EVIDENCE 26
sEC.1, RULE 129

As a general r.ulc, courts are not authorized to take_ judicial knowledge

of tfr.i conlents of the reeord of other cases, in the adjudication of cases
o*"{i""'before them, even though the trial judge in fact knows o-r rememu-ers
[tr" thereof,'li or even when said other cases have bcen heard or are
pending in the same court and notwithstanding tle fact that.b;oth
"orit""tr cases may
iuuu ti"" heard or are really pending before the same judge.3s Ho'ever,
i" itt" absenee of objection ahd- as a matter of convenience to all -parbies,
a court rnay properll. tren! all or any par.t- of ihe origir-ral record of a case
iif.a i" its- ai'chives- as re.ad into recoril of a case pending before it,forwhen
i;;ih t-h" k"o*lndg" of the opposing party, reference is made to it t}te
pri.p"-" fv na*e i"a number or: itt some other manner by rvhich it is sufficiently
'des,ig'nate,d,
or when the originnl record of the forrner ca-se or any part of
it ii' actually withdrawn from the archives Fy. ttre court's direction at ths
conse.rt of the parties an<l admitted as a part of the recordr
"uqouri-o"_'*ittr
of the case then pending.su
In somc instances also, courts have taken judicial notice of prcceedings
in orheri causes, because of-their close connectiou with the matter in contro-
;;".tF U"*"rL ,;there may be cqses so judicial - closely
interwoven, or so clearly
intei.ciependent, as to invoki" a rile of notice in one suit or the
o"o"""ain*. in another suit.a|Ihe court may properly resort to an inspection
ii-it* in other case.s where the interests of the public in ascertaining
"""i"ai
irru- i"oitr aie of paramount importance, as also eases where the cnurtqris
.i"tiirs t .1"t""-ii-te what is a- reasonable cxcrcise of its discretion,+3,
*tt.itt& the present proceetling is a moot one'13 or' 'lvhether or not a plcvious
ruling is applicablc in the c:rse under* consideration.aa
(k) La.us ol nature. Judicial knorvledge is taken of the.familiar and
uuqgiion".l tar* of nature - and of the existence of facts wh.ich must have
h;;;;;tA--;;"otai"g to the constant course of nature, such as the ebb atrd
ii;,1y-;i the tides: tire alternation of day and night, th-e rcturn of the respective
*".ro16 rvith the concomitartts of heat and cold' and the valying changes in
il;;;;l o".i "ng"t"l;te life, and that in certain seasons of the year in certain
io"uiiti"u there is a heavl: rain{all. Thc tendency of ripc frui:; to delay and
-trand,
." iir"- ttre iratural law which enables frost to arrest decay in
o" v"guiutrie tissues *-ill be noticed by t_he cou-r!s. - The courts knolv
"ttr"-
""i*"frio onn ft ordinary or normal health ca1 freeze his feet, rvhen reason-
iftui
i6[' .lua. uniess the ti.mperature falls considerably belorv thirty-two degre-es
l;-lir";-h;11.; ioai"i"t knorvledge is also taken of the phenomeuon oI t.he tides
t"";ti";.d in official hydrographic reports and the hours of its- occurrencela$
th; tiil when the moon liies-or seti on a particular day;+? 11to time when
3? 31 C.J.S. 023-624.
38 Mun. Council vs. Colegio de San Jose, ct al., G'R' No' L'45460' 3
3e U.S. vs. Claveria. 29 Phil. 527.
In-ttre atijuaicatiori oi u .or" pentling before it,'another a court is not authotized to
t"x"-ioai.lui tioticJ ot lrre contents of th"-"o"o"d of case even tf :3i1 .",i5
;; fi";d by the sanre-tlie judge. Exceptions: (1) rvhen in the absence of obiectlon"
;tth ;t; kno'rvledge of oipposing party, said' other case is clearly rgi.erre$ to,i1
a pending action-and adoptcd or read into the record of the latter; (2) when the
from the
o"i'Si;"i-i".""d-of tftu other casc or any part of it is actdally withdrarvn
ilii;; ol-itr" coo"t'r dir.iutiotr, or at tihe'request, or with the-consent of the-parfies.
unA ua*itt"A as part ? tfr" record of the lgnhing case. Tctlnrcna tts. Coutt ot
hre";t;:"i-sd-S-CA.'E dsii. Sru Justice A. L. Bettipiyo, Szro^e21 of Si.snificant 19e1

---'A-"; ou. Erilclence,

Deqsions P, 7.
son""ut .utu'Jou"t" are not authorized to take
judicial notice, in !n9 {j1-
dicafion oi pen{ing |efore the:m of the contents of other cass, even wLlen
"u*."
;;;h-;;.; r,""r-n6"" iri[d or a"e pending in the same court, and nohvithstandiing
ihe fact that both ttuuJU""tt-iried or are actually pending before the
same juclge. Prieto "ut*-tnoy
lus' Anoyo, et aI., 1.4 SCRA 549.
atl Figueras vs' Sennno, 52 Phil. 28.
41 31 C.J.S. 623-621.
42 lbid.
+a Brisol vs. Fischel, 81 Mo. A. 367'
'rr State vs. Savage, 195 Tex. 467, 471,151 S'W' 630'
4t,z'-J c.J. 140-141.
4rt Tan Ch'ong Sian vs' Inchausti & Co., 22 Phil' 152'
r7 iVlunihorverr vs. St:rte. 55 l\fr" 11, 39 Am. ReIr. 14.
26 RULES OF COURT SEC. 2, RULE 129

the sun rises or sets on a certain day, the abscnce or duration of twilght,
the presence or absence of daylight and the natural conditions oJ visibility.l8
But the court rvill decline to know judicially the operations of such laws
of nature as may be neutralized or offset by others and consequently are
variable in their action; and it will not take such notice where the existence of
a minor law or nature or its operation in a particular instance is disputed.
lVhile certain facts of physieal geography are judicially noticed, variation of
climate, or meteorological conditions in particular places at particular times
cannot be judiciallY known'lu
(l) Meagute ol time. Courts wiil judicially notice the things properly
belonging to an almanac.- The courts take judieial notice of the calendar
and of the periods within the calendar. They take judicial notice of the
computation of time, the subdivision of the year into nonths, rveeks, and days,
the days of the week, the order of sueceeding days of the week, the nu-mb-er
of dayi in a month, the ooincidence of days of the rryeek rvith days of the
month, and of the days of the month with those of the year. Likewise, courts
judicially notice the day of the week on whieh any partieular clate has fallen,
although it has been held that this rule will not be extended so as to cover
;' an unieasonable time in the past. The subdivision of the day into hours and
their ordel of succession are also judicially nuticed.so
(m) Geographicgl &iuisions. Judicial notice has been taken of the fact
-
o that'the Philippines is divided into'provinces, municipalities, torvnship.s ard
barrios; that certain cities are divided into lots, blocks and strcets;5t 966
boundaries of each political subdivision as prescribed by statute, such as those
of the City of Manila and provinces; that known places are or are not within
certain boundaries, as for instanco, that a eertain municipality is within a certain
province;s2 that Sacristia Street is within the City of Manila;53 that a certain
place opposite to l\fagallanes landing is within the City of Manila;rl that
San Juan Heights is a suburb of the City of Manila and u'ithin the zone over
which the Cour! of First Instance of Manils has jurisdietion;;; ,nU that a
certain barrio is within a certain municipality.r'rl

Sec. 2. Judicial notice, ulten, disct'etionarE. 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 iuilges because
of their judicial functions.
1. Matters subject to discretionary judicial notice.
2. Personal knowledge of judse not judicial knowledge of coutt.
3. Matters of judicial cognizance need not be actually known to judges'
4. Power to take judicial notice must be exercised with caution.
QUESTION 1. What are subiect to dtsct'etionary iudicial
noti,ce? Giae eramples - of each.facts
ANSWER. A court may take judicial notice of the following:
-
(a) Mattera of pttblic knotuledge. The matter of which a court r'l'ill
take judicial notice must be a subject of - common and general knorvledge. In
other words, judicial knowledge of facts is measured by general knowledgp
of the same facts. A fact is said to be generally recognized or known when
its existence or operaticn is accepted by the public without qualification or
contention, The test is whether sufficient notoriety attaches to the fact involved
as to make it proper to assume its existence without proof. Thus, the courts
may take judicial notice of the existence and locetion rvithin the territory over
as De Sarosola v-". Yubiao Sontua, 4? Phil. 365.
4$ 23 C.J.S. 140-141.
.r{ iit c.J.s. 699-7c0.
51 tI.S. vs. Gellegos. 37 Phil. 289.
5:l Marzon vs. Udtujan, 20 Phil. 232,
53 lI.S. vs. Chua Mo, 23 Phil. 233.
.'r tI.S. vs. Lim Soon, 34 Phil. 668'
n; People vs. Ponferrada, et al., 54 Phil. 68'
io Pcople vs. DeI Prado, 58 Phil' 637.
 sDc. 2, nuLE 129 EVIDENCE

which they. exercise jurisdiction of great rivers and lakes, and their relation to
provrncial boundaries; of the navigability of streams, constituting tristwavs oi
commerce and other notorious facts concerning the same. ftE piesumllion
of general knowledge weakens as we pass to srialier;J-i;."-k;orirr streams;
and- yet, within the limits of any country ttre navisubiriiv-oi"i't""g"
:yght,Jo be generallv.known. The courts-may, ttere-to.e-i"ur."-jriai"iul knowl-
edg:e thereof, as a matter of general knowledge.l
"i*i
cylybte of unquestiotto,ble clem,oltstration. _ More realistieally,
-,^ JPl^ Y:rt":!
y_e,nuJu he,r,e al imp-ortant extension of iudicial notice to the new field
6t'
facts "capable of sulh instant and unque-stionable aor*".t""iln,' ir a"ri""o,
t,20 Am..Jur.49; Banatao vs. Dobbay
and Tuliao, gg phil. 6f2.
..r'he courts may take judicial notic.e of the exisience and location rvithin thc
.territory over whieh they i.xercise j-urisdiction
relation to provincial bcu-ndaries: oi th" "r il.t "1";* r;; -Th; taL"s, ana tn"i"
high_
ways of commerce and other notorious facts "u"ie"bitiwof-;i;;*;;;o,rstituting
cbncerni"g tt," t;;il,";ii;;
".na
of
,genera.l \1ow].edge rveakens us *" puri io smaller "u"r;:
r*.r ["orvn strearlsl arrd
vet, within the limits of any country -t,he navigability ;]-"'b;d-;i"er ought io--il,e
generally Known. The
Ftelrauy k-nown. couits nay,
r'ne co-ur-ts thereforeatake judicial knorvledg.e thereof, as
may,- theref
a matter of general knowledge. Ed.nahrc as. bobbiu" i;d i"i;;,' ;s 'I;hii. ois.-' -"
Judicial notice mav-be taken of the fact that reai prop"rtiu" J"! usually 4eclaretl
for taxation Duroo"o=-bv thp ^rr,.o*-+il.-^r
purposes lry ttr" owners thereof *,r*r.
with -h -A-^^^^r --^r.-^
air assessed vatuo -^^--,r- L-t,
*u.ti Giorv
their actual malket vanie. De Ia Crua-il ii."lzii:n, fii'iin
IO, 195u, "ti.'ii,-i";;;"'ic
, . I: .judicial -notice that the Veterans Bank is locatetl on Bonifacio Drive
whrch is !"k"
heavily travelled especiqlly during the day._ such a site is not a likely place
to stage a hijack. Peope w. Olitserio, ei- al., lzti SCEA zz. -
It is a matter of common knowledge and experience about common carriers
like trains and buses that before reachin{ a station^or-fl"g$tih"y slow do*n-a-nd
the conductor announces the name of t-he place. lf is -ir.o -" matter of common
experiencre that as the train or bus slacke-ns its speed,-som"'
proceed to the nearest exit, ready to disem'barlc as lfre f..."rg"".
usually
stand frain o-i bos
-an-d
to a fu.ll stop. This is especially-tfue of-a train U".u"r"-p-osr"ttgu., feet-thaiii "o*el
the train resumes its run- befora they are able to dis;niba;k-,-;h;; is rvay to stop
it as ? bqs may be stopped. Briii.as its. peopla, ui oi., iii-idni-oar.
.besetTh-. Supreme Court took judicial notice that financial problem is a factor that
the s_ugar indust.y; thit there is crisis in ah; ;d;-lndustry. ulioio- *.
Leogarclo, Jr., 1t*p SCRA 9S6.
T.he goyr!.may ta-ke judicial notice of the fact that rape may be committed
even in-vicinities or piaces rvhere- people conglomerate such a's pu"lir, or tfre-roaal
sides. There have been reported tasls of iape committed it"---i""Ji,
"iel,[--rt
Rizal Park, or even within school premises r*rere-peqn_1" uuo""a.-'Fi".or;;i.-diii'iril)
lsl SCRA 569, Sec olso peopla- os. Sison, tes'SCEa-soi;.'-"
. This Court takes juCi-cial notice of the fact that in nrost cases, an afficlavit
is not prepared by the affiant himself, but by attolher *fto ur.*-tis own lanEuaqe
rn writinE the affiant's statements. Omissions and misunderstandings by the iritEr {
are Jlot infreq'.ent,pa$!cql91l.y rrrrder-circumstance of stress and impiiienle.
vs. Reyasaga, 54 SCRA 850.t people os. Ramos, 15g SCRA Ai6.'' 1p".pi"
-
The Supreme Court-took judicial notice of ihe general increase in rentals of
real.cstate espeeialiy of busineis estabtjshments. Coiniiai, E;"1;i: i;;.';;.- C"";i
oj Appeals, 168 SCRA IAr.
-- Thg Supreme Court_may tate judicial notice that the politieal upheaval of 1gE6
affected.the Parilippine National Construction Co"porrtio" it-l'o*"nt""nt controlled-
corporation. There was-a,change of management. pltilippine'Nalion.at Consttitctiit
Cot'poration us. Fener-Coleja, i67 SCRA'gg4,
-.The-Suprene Court took- judicial uotice of the fact that titles of royalty or
uobility have been maintain-ed'and appear to be accorded some-vato" .-oi,! io-"
members of certain cultural groups in our society. ai ll" ,ame time, .o.fr iiti""
of royalty and nobilitlare not_generglly recognized or act<nowte<te'"a so6iattv i" tt,e
national community. Bu.lletin. Pubishing eorpiratiott t,s. Judge Niel, toi sin|" s-ii.
.
pgr, or its effects, or other factors which could not have been foreseen or
|,Ytd:d by.a party. fo g contract, such as uncertain conditions of peace and order
then prevailing which the court mty !4e judicial notice of, are decreed sufticient
eauses that could justify the nonfulfillmeni of a contract 'and- exemnt the nartv
lrom_responsibility. Philippine National Bank as. cottt of Appeals, si sCn,A'isi.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that tr,ntry"u.plbyeei afflicted wilh
 28 RULES OF COURT sEC.2, RULE 120

that uo party would think of imposing a falsity on the tribunal in the face
of an intellig:entadversary."2 or "capable of immediate and accurate denron-
stration by resort to easily accessible sources oi indisputable acculaey.":r 36
variously stated.< In this rsalm fall most of the facts, theories, and conclu-
sions lvhich have. come to be established and accepted by the specialists in
the areas of natural scienee,5 natr'.ral phengmena,{i chronology,? teclhnologt-i
geography,o statistical factsro and other fields of professional and scientific
knotvledge.
(c) lJlattqrs ough,t to bc known to judges because of tl*ir julictctl ftne-
tions. In a case applicant introduced a ccrtificate signed by the Consul
- of Spain in the Philippinres, stating that in accordance lvith articles 1?
General
and 25 of the Spanish Civil Code, among other Spanish legislation, Fiiipinos
are eligible to Spanish citizenship in Spain. Article 1.? provides that foreigrrers
who have obtained a certificate of naturalization and those who have not
obtained such ceriificate but have acqr.rired domicile in any town of the
Monarchy are Spaniards. It was held that as the Spanish Civil Code has
been and still is "the basic corle in force in the Philippines," :rrticles 17,
et s.eq., ihei'eof may be regarded as matters hnorvn to judges of the Philippines
'I'TB, specially at its iucipient or early stage, persist in u'orking despite their
ailment, by rea-"on of theii sheer determination to continue earrling a living for
tlremselves and thcir families (Romero vs. WCC,7? SCRA 482,489 [19?7]). f)ct'ez
tfs. Wot'kmcn's Cotnpensatiott Aomtnission, 9! SCBA g2S.
The obsbrvation of the trial court as to the existence of gang r.ivalries is a
matter of judicial notice. In fact, aside from the four killings involved in ihis
case, v'hich were perpetratcd at about eig:ht-forty-five in the morning of Good
!.riday, April 9, 1971 three other incidents took place in succession on that same
morning, Peopl.e t,s, Garata, et al., 96 SCRA 497.
! I \Yigmore on Evidence, 548.
sModel Code of Evidence, Rule 802(c) (1942),
a See also In re Malcorn, 129 F. 2d 529, 533 (C.C.P.A. 1942); Nichols vs.
Nichols, l?6 Conn.614, l3 A.2d 69L,595 (1940); State vs. Schriber, 185 Ore. 615'
205 P. 2d. r49 (1949).
5 See, e.g., Electric Storage Battery Co. r's. Shimadzu, 123 F. 2d 890 (3rd Cir.
1941) (that heated oxygen will combine with lcad to form lead oxide); Russo vs.
Swift & Co., 136 Neb.406,286 N.W.291 (1939) (nature and origin of disease of
echinococcosis); State vs. Schriber, 185 Ore. 615, 205 P. 2d 149 (1949) (that Bang's
disease is an infectious and contagious disease of cattle). See Note, Judicial Notice
of lledical Facts, 36 Mich. L. Rev. 610 (1938). See also Buhrkhul vs. F.T. O'Dell
Constr. Co.,232 I\{o. App. 967,95 S.W. 2d 843 (1936), where the court takes judicial
notice that a barn taller than other buildings on an isolated farm rvas a place of
special danger from lightning.
Disagreements as to rvhether particular scientific questions are within the field
of judicial knolvledge are, naturally, not uncommon. See, e.g., Universal Granite
Quarries Co. vs. Industrial Comnr'n., 224 i4'is. 680,272 N.W. 863 (1937), and Smith
vs. Harbison-Walker Retractories Co.,340 Mo.389, 100 S.W.2d 909 (1936) (that
some dust causes lung trouble); In re Svrain's Will, 158 Misc. 17, 285 N.Y. Supp.
234 (Surr. Ct. 1936), and Commonrvealth vs. English, L23 Pa, Super 161, 186 Atl.
298 (1936) (that blood-grouping tests are relevant on question of paternity).
eMcAffee vs. United States, 111 F.2d 199 (D.C. Cir. 1940) (maximum snd
minimum temperatures in District of Cclumbia on certain date); Statc vs, Perkins,
342 Mo.560, 116 S.W. 2d 80 (1935) (time of sunrise cn particular morning).
7 State vs. Van Ness, 109 Vt. 392, 199 Atl. 754, lL7 A.L.R. 415 (1933) (days
of week on rvhich certain dates fell).
8\Merk vs. Patker,219 U.S. 130,132 (1919) (court by reference to encyclopedia
and other authorities could take notice that long before present patent was issued
the use of horsehair mats in presses for the extraction of oil p'as rvell known in
the art).
3 See, e.9., Swarzwald vs. Cooley, 39 Cai. App. 2d 306, 103 P. 2d 580 (1910)
(meaning of phrase, "ordinary high tide," in the vicinity of Laguna Beach).
The court may take judicial notice of the fact that on the night of a certain
date, the rnoon lvas almost full. People as. Villanueoa, 161 SCRA 511.
loGroves vs. Boald of Comm'rs.,209 Ind.371, 199 N.E. 137 (1936) (population
of cities and torvns of state shorvn by federal census); Cox vs. Polson Logging Co.,
18 Wash. 2d 49, 138 P. 2d 169 (1943) (trial judge may inform jury of life expectancy
from mortality tables rvithout proof ) ; Dec. Deg. Evidence, 12.
SEC. 3, RULU 129 EVIDENCE 2C

by reason of their judicial fuuctions.-1nd pa1'be ju-dieially reeognized by them

riithout the introduction of proof. (Sec. 5, Rule 123). llloreover, in a number
of decisions mere authentication of the Chinese Naturalization Law byploof th9
Ctri""ri Colsuiate General of Manila has been held to be competent
of that law. (Yap vs. Solicitnr: General, 81 Phil. 4681.1r
QUESTION 2. Is tha personnl ,t;n,s'u:lctlgc of tlLe iuJgc a itt'cli'cinl
-
knowlectge of the court?
11 Pardo vs. Republic, 85 Phil. 232.
Respon4ent coult was fully justified in relying on its record in order to deter-
ntine'ifr[ auiu on ivhich petiti"onirs' counsel received op]a 9! ,the -decision. Matters
*lii"ft-""eht-to lo knourir to judges because of.the^r judieial-functions shall be
jiiai"i"tiy-""cogaize{ by the c6urd withogt the introduction -of proof (Section- 6'
iil;-iti, n"i8r oi-coit"tl. Facts rvhich are ascertainable from the record of a
*uit p",i..utting are atttong thosc matters rvhieh judges- are supposed take to knorv by
;;;;"';i-ih.i"-;"Ai.iuL functions. In a case on -irial the court.rvill (People judiciai
noiice of its records and of the facts which the record establishes vs.
lli,iiLti, i.n. N".-i-ao-rizi (unpuulished). De los Angeles cts. Ilott. Cabahug, et a'1.,
10ti Pluil. 839.
Appellant's first contention is besed on the assumptiotr. that the cr'iminal aclion
in the 'ca"e wa= comnrenced by the filing of an inforrnation. That assumption for rap-e.
is
;;;G.-iis staiecl above, the victim and-her mother filed the complaint. n su{fi-
fir.V-.ig;"4 the comptaiirt rvhich *'as sworn to before the fiscal. 'l'hat 4,isIlule
with Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 110
"i"ni Rriles of Court. That complaint is a part of the record rvhich t"as elcvated
ot' tlu"-"ilpji"nee
to if,e Coott of !-irst Instance. Ii should havl judicial been plesented in. evidence but even
ii ofturaed in evitlencc, it is a rnatter of notiee. l'cople lus- 'l'urn'pxts,
-- "oi
88 sclla 217.
"i;; p;;t office practice of rvhich the Court of First Instance took judlcial notiee
is not covered b1' siry of the specific instances cited abore (Section 1, -Ruleor129).
i("itfr"" can it be ctassified unrier "matters rvhich are of public kno-wledge, are
o] tlemonstration, or ought to ie. knorvn kr judges because of
"rpifrf"
;6ill" juoiciai-i.i""iio"i."
""qu"itionable For a rnatter to be tai<en judicial n_oiice,of the court of law,
it;*-t-b"-; subject of cornmon and general knoivledge. In facts. rn'ords, judieial
-other
rrotice of fp.cts is *uu*"",} b1' genelal iinowledge of the same 'A' fact is said
i"-U" g"""*"fiy-recognized o" L,o*r when its existence or operation is accepted by
ifr.,-pu[fi"
-.J ivliftoot qiialification or contention. Tl.re test is rvhether tha fact involved
i. knbwn a." to *rlie it proper to assume its existence rvithout proof.
that ir Ueliei is not rrniversai, licwever, is not contl:olling-for it.is very
"oJo"iously
1'fr"-iu.t
;;fio1n til;-anv [eilet is accepted by everyone. It is enoggh that the matters arc
lui"ifi."iv knorin to ifte majority oi *otr[.it d or those prsonsof.Court familiar with the
;;.i];;t; *utt"" i" q"u,-.tio""<20-Am. Jur.'49-50;.-I\[artin,-Rules. 17,' l-"1"_i9
rnatter may F persona.lly knowtr..to the iudge and yet llot
ijaitio"l-. Irurthermoie, a-i<nov.rledge
fr"- r-"iittur of jutliciai and vice versa, a matter may. not be^ actu.ally
known to an individual iudge, and neverthelcss be a ploper subJect oI Judiclal--
cognizance.
-----1.[u . {
post office pracfice herein involved is not tcsted by the-aforestated considera-
tions, a i"op"r rr.toai"i" 6i-Jriaiclai notice. .IVlo,reover, the-certification issued by lhe
;;;;'p;tf-;;rtu" oi tlie riost office rvhere the letter containing. thethat questioned .motion
the said-post
fo"".it""rio" of time was posted, is a very clear manifestation doctrine of judicial
oiii* p"u"ti.e is not of'unqriestio"Lble demonstration. Indeed, the
noticl'rests on the wisaoin'atta discretion of the courts. The porver to take judieial
;;i;; i; i; l" **1"4.r.4 by the courts with caution; care must be taken that the
-and
requisite notoriety exists; every reasonable doubt upon-the ^subject s^hould be
pri,mptty r.esolved i1 the iregative (i1 C.J.S. 522; Martin, Rules of Court 38, Second
Edition).
It is therefore manifest fror:r the foregoing that the Court- of First Instance of
gulacan eommitterl a p:rlpable error amounting to a g'rave abuse of discretion in
;.ivid'";- 1i;o "iGda'foit offi""-practice aforementioncdbeing over the uncontroverted
oi ttu-pottl*astel earlier referred to. That so' the ilismi:sal of
""Jtiii?"tio"
;;iil;;;i---ppeu,t tti"".fore lacks factual basis. It should have acted on petitroner's
iifth motion for extension of time which we find to have been filed on time. Repu'blic
al th.e Plilippines as, Cotn't of ATtpeals, 107 SCRA 504'
The court cannot be expected to take judieial notice of the ne'w addres-" of a
larvyer rvho has moved or io ascertain on its orvn rvhether ol not the ccunsel oi
recJrd has been changed and rvho the nerv counsel could possibly be or rvhere he
,tu IiIli,$S O]"I CCIUIi,T SEC. B, RULI.: 1?9

ANsltr'nli. -_ Tlre mer"e tlelsonrl litrorvledgc of the judge is not the

judicial knowledge ril tlie cr.irn't; judicial cogniztnce is tahen only of those
matters whiclt iri'*i "tilmmonl.ii" linou'n. Tltus, the individu:rl and extrit-
judir:i:rl ftnowlediie of the jurlgr: tliat some of the p:rrties are dead, or that
lhe defendant is lr resit-ierit of lnother state cloes not dispense with proof
of those facts ancl cltrnot be rcs+i'ted to for the purpose of suirplementing
tlre record.l:
QUESTIOT\ 3. Is i.t esscntittl tlmt rtuttt'.r's of iudicial cognizancc
be actua,llpl knattn. ttt- tltc iucltle?
ANSWBR. __ It is not essential tliat rn:rtters of judicial cognizance
l-re ac:tually ]inown to the jutlge. If lbe subject is lrroper for judicirl
knowledge, tfie judgt: ur:ry, 1L his ciiscretion, infolm himself in any way
which rrury seern lrcst to hirn, ttncl :rct accordingly.r;l Thus, where the.
inforrnation ch:lrges the etnbezzlement of a certain sum of money ia gold
G{il'Fel}cv of t}re United States it is not birrl for not alleging t}re ccluivalent
,,f,rJue iri pesetas, and the courts will take judicial notice of the equivalent
i1 t[e l1tte1 coin for tlre purpose of fixilg the penalty.la And if the
lrlrties refitse to prt"rlttr.'e er,-icience of the relative value of Mexican and
i'Sililipinc culrency, l.he cout't trlry considei' cxecutive ordel.s fixing the
v:ilue of the sittne.16
QUESTION 4. Hoto should, tlte Ttower ta tal;e iudieial notiee be
t rt rcise.tl? -
ANSWITR. The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom
:rnd discretion of- the courbs. The powel to tlke judicial notice is to be
exercised by courts rvith caution; cale must be taken that the requiqite
rrotoriety eiists; and every reasona|le doubt upon the subject should be
promptly resolved iu the negative.l$

Sec. 3. Jud,iciat notice, uh,en lt'earing necessary. During the trial"

-the court, on its own initiatil'e, or on request of a -
party, tllsY announce
probably resitles or holcls office. It is logical to assume that processes mailed to
i"tltiotir Chiorrgbian and his ffroup, addreised to t]reir larvl'er at the Willianr Lines
-bhe
Building 1'ere in fact received, in absence of a notice of change of address or
counsel.- Atty. Drapiza should'have observed the legal fornrally required before a
counsel ofl record may be considered relieved of his responsibility as suoh counsel on
account oftvithdrarvai. On their part, the petit;oners themseives should have informed
the eourt of the withdlawal of tireir'coun..el after the several reminders they made
to hirn anent his tvithdrarval had ailegedly beetr ignored. Lce tts. Hontillo, Jr., !61
SCRA 600.
Zosimo Jenilla's verified complaint for rape rvas filed in the municipal court
of Kiamba on July 23, 1969. It rvas docketed as criminal case No. 999. It is
page 4 of the recoid elevated by the nrunicipal judge to the Cou,rt of First Instance.
*should
it have been marked as an exhibit by the plosecution. However, the fiscal's
rallure to do so did not nrean that the trial courl did not acquire jurisdiction over
the case. The cornplaint, is a ntatter of judicial notice. People ts. Satellano, 57
SCRA 390.
If the complaint in a case t'hich cannot be prosecuted de o/icio (e.9., rape,
abduction, elc.) is forrvalded tt: the trial court as part of the records of the prelimi-
nary investigalion of lhe ca.:e, the court can take judicial notice of the same without
thr. nccessit,j; of its folntl intlod'-rcbion :rs evldence fol lhe plosecution' People z*s.
SitnpanElco, ltji .SCn,1 -'-'i. .1.
t-: Wheelel vs. Webster', D. Smith (i{.i:'") 1; State vs. Edrvalds, 19 Mo. 6?4;
lfayor', etc. of Nerv Orlea.ns vs. Ripley, 5 La. 121, 25 Am. Dec. 175.
1:] Hoyb v-*. Russel, 11; Il.S. 401' 2.Cl L. ecl. 014, 6 S. Ci. 881.
I t I .S. vs. harcl.::', :i l."l;1. 2:lii.
1: (ias1rirr v.-. JIullt: :. :, lr,:l' lt?.
'i,::i1 {:.J.!; itl.l.
SEC.3, RULA 129 EVIDENCS 31

its intention to take iudicial notice of any matt,er and allorv the parties
to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before iudgment or on appeal, the proper court,
on its own initiative or on request of a party' lnay tahe judicial notice
of any matter and allorv the parties to be heard thereon if such matter
is decisive of a material issue in the case.
1. Purpose of hearing.
2. When judicial notice may be taken.
3. Judiciai notice taken during trial distinguished fron, that taken after trinl but
before judgment or on aPeal.
4. Determination of facts subjeet of .iudicial notice.
QUESTION t. What is the p'urpose of n hearing?
ANSWER.
-
.i\ ltearing: may be necessrry, not for the presentation
of evidence, but- to afford the parties leasonalrle opportutrity to plesent
information relevant to the propriety of taking such jgdiciul notice or to
tlre tenor of the mattel to be noticed. (See Rule 804 of tire i\{odei Code
of Evidence).1
This pr.ovision is baserl upon ltasic notions of lrrocedunil due pr'o1es-e,
silce judicial notice largelS' preempts the normal ecttlse cf the f:rct-
firrding procedure.s
QUESTION 2. At u:lmt sttLge may the: rourt tulte irulir:ial notice
oi u faet? -
ANSWER. Judicial notic:e of il fact ma_'l be taken (&) during trial,
- before jttclgnrent, or (c) zq)peal. In all instances, the
(b) after trial and
Court may act on its own initiative or on request of a partl'.3
/QUESTION 3. Distingui,sh iu,rlicial noti.ce taken dut"tng trial, f''om.
iudicial notice taken- after trial but before iui,gment, or on artpeal'
ANSWER. A distinction is made betweenjudgment judicral notice taken
-
rluring trial and that taken aftel trial but before or on appeal-
Durin? the trial, the Court may announce its intention to take judicial
rrotice-'of anu rnatter and may hear the parties thereon.e For instance,
-witness
in a trial, a stzltes: 'iI came home about the time of sunset. I
believe it was September l'r. I know it was a weekend." The Court may
announce its intention to take iudicial notice that September 5 is a Sunday
and that sunset was 6:40 p.m., aud give the parties an opportunity to be
heard on the matter. ,
After the trial, but before judgrnent or on appeal, the court may
toke juclicial notice of any matter and allow the par:ties to be heard
thereon if such nratter is rlecisi,ac of a matet'ial issu.e in thc case.6 For
instance, in a suit on a promissory note the plaintiff recovered judgment
i1 the iower coult. After the appeal w1s taken, the appellate court
<liscovered that the clate of the note was a Sunday, a decisive fact that
r.vould make the note void. The appellate court may announce its inten-
tion to take judicial notice of t[e fact as shown by the calendar and
require the parties to lrc heard on the nratter. Again, plaintiff sued a
t Feria, Revised Rules on E..'idence Annotated (Philippinc Legal Studies, Series
No.4), p. 3.
:1 10 $Ioore's Federal Practice, II-41.
3 of Court, as amended.
See Sec. 3, Rule 129, Rules
. F;;; ffii;e R;i;s on EviAett." Annotated (Philippine Legul Studies, Series
No. 4), pp. 3-4.
5 lbid.
 oo RULES OF COUIIT sEC. 4, nULE 129

raih'oad company for damages for personal injuries, claimed to have been
crused by the railroad's failure to comply with the safety rules promul-
gated by the L:rnd Transportation Commission. The arttorney for the
defendant, apparently after the apperrl, discovereci that zl rule h:rd been
promulgated by the Commission that rvould negate the alleged negligence
of the defendant. Counsel for the defendant may reqLrest the appellate
court to take judicill notice of that fact and the lattcr miiy lequire the
counsel of the plaintiff to be heard.
An :qrpellate court contemplating judicial notice should notify tire
parbies so that the propriety of t*king notice :rnd the tertor of the nt:rtter
to be noticecl can bc eugued. The pcint ol-rviously may be decisive of
the appeal or the court wottld not be considering it. Even u'here the
fact apperrs indisputable it may be fairer to allow the adversely affected
party to challenge its relevancy or raise tlie possibility of remurding
for further proof. If oral argument has alreacly been completed, the
coult should at least afford the parties an oppoltunity to submit supplc-
rhent:rl bliefs.6
QUESTION 4, May tlrc cout't consult approTtt"iate and reliable
towces ol inf ormat'ion - in rJ,etemdwing u'hether a fact is p'roper su,b:iect ot'
iud,icial not'ice?
AIIS\'VER. Yes. The judge r'l.tay consult wolks on collateral
scriences or :rrts,-touching the topic on trial. He may dt':nv, for instance,
on ntythology, in order to determine the meaning of similes in an antbi-
piuous writing. IIc may refel' to almana.cs; he may apireal to his own
memory for the meaning of a woi:d in the l'ernacttlar; he m:ry, as to tho
rneaning of terms, refer to dictionaries of science of all classes; he may
cletermine the meaning of abbreviations of Cliristirrn names ancl offices
and of other cornmon ter-rns; zts to a point of political history (e.g., the
recognition of a foreign gover"nrnent) he may consult tlie executil'q dgpar:t-
ment of the state; he may cause inquiry to be made as to the practice
of other courts; and Lord Hardwicke went so fzrr as to inquire of att
eminent conveyancer as to a rule of conveyancing practice. And also the
court may irave recourse to the legislative rolis to deterrnine the con-
struction of a statttte.?

Sec. 4. Judieial admi.ssions. An admission, verbal or rvritten, made

by a lnrty in the course of the -proceedings in the same case' does _not
requir-e proof. 'Ihe admission may be contradicted only by showing that
it rvas made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
1. Judicial admissions defined.
2. Extrajudicial admissions defined.
3. Judicial admissions distinguished from extrajudicial admissions.
4. Forms of judicial rdmissions.
5. Ef1cct of invalid and ineffective deniai of actionable docuntents.
6. Adnrission contained in pleadings filed in anothcr action.
7. No adrnission arises rvhen defendant is adjudged in cicfeuit.
8. Stiprrlation of facis in criminal cases.
9-10. Adrnissions in rvithdrau'n, supcrsedcd or ar:rcntled plcadings.
11-13. Effect of judicial admissions.
QUESTION 7. Defitzc judicial admissions.
-
'j Currie, "Appcllate Courts Use of Facts Outside of the Reeord by llesorb to
Judicial Nolice and Itrdependent Investigation," 1960 \1 isc. L. Rev. 39, 52.
? Wharton's Crirnitial Evidence.

i
I

b."'#,.-
 SEC, 4, RULE 129 EVIDENCE OD

ANS\4iIIR. * .Iudicial admissions ue thcse so rnacle in thc pleadings

fiied or in the progress of a trial.l
QUESTION 2. Define entrajurlicial admissi.ons.
ANSWEB.
-
Extrajudicial admissions are those made out of court,
cr in a judicial -proceeding other than the one under consideration.z
QUESTION ?>. * Distingui.sh, iuclicial admissions from, ertc"aiudicial,
utlm,iss'iorts.
ANSWER. -.- Juclicial admissions are conclusive upon the part5r
making them, while extrajuclicial admissions or other admissions are, as
:i rule and where thc eiements of estoppel are not lrresent, disputable.s
QUIISTION 4. Vl/ltat ure the dif f erent forms of judicial ad,mis-
sions ? -
ANSl,Vi.lR. A judicial zrtlmission may be oral as a verbal waiver
"of proof m:rde in- open court, lr. withdrerwal of a contention, or a disclosure
nr:idc trefore the couri, or &n adrnission made by a witness in the course
of his testim;:n.', or" clcposition, or may be in writing as in pleading, bill
nf prrticuirls, slil"rul:rtion of, facts, request for admission, or a judicial
rd.mission contained in an affidavit used in the case.a
QUESTION 5. lVhat is the effect of an inualid, and inef f cctiue
tlania! of actionul:lt -doannents attached to the complaint?
ANSWER. In a case, the court held: rule provides: Judicial
Admissions. -Adrnission, verbal or written,"The made by a party in the
coul'se of the- proceedirrg in the same case, does not require proof. The
:rcimission may be contr':rdicted only by showing that it was made through
1;llp:rble n"listake or that no such admission was made."
"As e:lrly as 1925 in the case of Asia Banking Corporation vs. Walter
E. Olsen & Co. (-18 Phil. 1129) rve have ruled that documents attached to
ilre complaint :rre consiclered a part thereof and may be considered as
eridence althcugh they are not introdttced as such.
"The Deed of Exchange was attached to the petition. Necessa::il3',
JALECO'S contention that it has no knowledge or information sufficient
to fr:rtn il belief ers to the truth of the tleed of exehange becomes an invalid
ci' ineffective denial pursuant to the Rules of Court. Under the circum-
stances, the petitioner cottid have easily asserted 'whether or not it executed
the deed of exchange. 4

"Considering the admission by Chua and the non-denial of JALECO

c.f the document forming part of the petition, the appellate court committed
leversible error in not admitting the deed of exchange as evidence."6
SUESTION 6. Is an admission containerl i,n a pleaclr.ng in
cnotlter actian motcrial - to thc issue. on tt'iul a iudicial admdssion? filed,
ANSWER. No. To be considered a judicial admission, the admis-
- in the same case, otherwise, it is an extrajudicial
sion n:ust be mlile
:Ltinrission.6
r 2 Joncs on Evidence, Sec, 89.1 ; Anderson's Dict.; Bouv. Dict.; 1 Greenleaf on
Evidence, Sec. 2?.
e Pelry vs. Singson, 40 Conn. 313; Tracy's Handbook', 62 Ed., pp, 9-10.
;tBarber vs, Ilennett, 60 Yt. 662; 5 Ail. 433, 1 L.II.A. 224.
{ 31 C.J.S. 1069.
a Philippine Bank of Cornmunicati,)ns vs. Court. of Appeals, 195 SCRA 567.
0 See Sec. 4, Ruie 129. Rules of Court, as amended.

I
s4 RULES OF COURT sEc. 4, RULE 129

An aclmission macle in anothcr case does not have the same force as
o :uai"i,,r-';d";i-*ri"; in the same case, but is regarded as being in the
natu"e of an extrajudicial admission.T
QUESTION 7. Does faiture to answer the complnint amwnt to
-
ju,rliciat adnlission of the facts ailegeil thcrein?
ANSWER. lvhen a clefendant is declarecl in default for having
-
filecl to alswer tfte compiai"t, *"tt a failure does not amount to an admis-
sion of the flcts ;it6;d in tle complaint.s If the defendant fails to
:lnswer within the fi;;;p".ili"O-i" thd rules, the court shall, upon -m9ti93
{e{9Laant in
default'
oi the pf,,intitt ana prJ#;i il"h failure, deciare ttrg plaintiff's and
iftur",,put,, the court-tit^fi-pto."ed to receive the evidenee
r."4"" juAlt"e"t gra"titrg trim suctr lelief as the Cornplaint and the facts
liroven **y *urronl.' in ttris connection,.it ,has,been plonosed. by.the
Revision oommittee trc noit* of court'that judgment'be rendered on
"r
ii';;i;;,ti"g* i" .uru of default on the part of the defendlnt.lo
t eunSTIoN 8. /s a stipulation of facts allou<tcl'in crintinal cases?
-
ANSWER. In U.S. vs. Pobre (11 Phil. 51) it was held that it is
-
nbitfrer p"op", ,ro"-p"r"nirsible to consider a case closed, or to render I

:iuag*.rt tLerein, b^y virtue of a1 agreement entered into between the I

itroii".iuf fiscal and-the counsel for [he accused with reference to facts ,'

icme of which are favorable to the defense, and others related to the
pi'o.u"utio", without any evidence being aclduced or testimony taken from
the witnesses mentioned in the agreement; such practice is not authorized
,urd defeats the purposes of the criminal law; it is an open violation of
the rules of criminal Procedure.
It v,,ould seem that the aforementionec cloctline of the supreme
court laid down ur-uutw as 1908 no longer holds true-in the light of .the
p"Jiiii prrcvisions in criminal cases fo-un4 in Rule 118 of the Revised
-R.ol"; the following:
;i bourt, which provides, among others,
See. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects.
_ The pre.trial corrfer-
ence shall consider the following:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) StiPulntion of facts;
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Such other rnattels as will promote a fair etttd expeclitiotts
trial.
In this connection, American jurisprudence holds that in a criminal
case, the parties, prosecution and defenie, may stip-ulate that defendant's
confession was voiuntarily made,n although this does not establish the
truth thereof.l2 They may also stipulate as to the validity of a search
warrant.t, By stipulation a defendant may waive the introduetion of all
of the state's evidence, agree what the testimony would be, waive bhe
7 22 C.J. 329,330.
3 Lopez vs. Mendezona, 11 Phil. 209.
e Sec. 1, Rule 18, Rules of Court'
to A p"ob"t"l of ;'he Revision Committee of the Rules of Court'
rr Fed"t" vs. Barnes, 30 bal. 2d 624, 183 P. 2d 664 (1947)'
rcFeoite vs. Smith,'3z Ill. 2d 88, 203 N.E. 2d' 879 (1966)' -.
ts?i-i;.' jo". Za'stipuiations, Secs. I et seq.; 83 C.J.S. Stipulations, Secs. I
I

sEc. 4, RULE 129 EYIDENCE 36

light to introduce his defense, and rest its case.la The parties may also
:rgreethat a specified witness, if called to testify, would testify to certain
facts, give testimony of a particular kind or character, in a particular
manner, or to a stated effect.16
I
Stipulations voluntarily entered into between the parties will be
respected and enforced by the courts unless contrary to public policy or
I

good morals.rG A formal judicial stipulation as to the facts is conclusive

between the parties as long as it standsl? and such facts are not subiect
to contradiction by showing the facts to be otherwise than as agreed
upon.r8 However, the binding effect of the facts applies only to the parties
in agreement; it is no more binding on the court than any other evidence
in the case.le
QUESTION 9. Mag a pleadi'ng which has been superseded' or
-
amend,ed, be considered as iu.dicial ad,missi.on?
ANSWER. Under the rule of procedure, pleadings superseded or
- from the record as judicial admissions, and in order
amended disappear
that any statements contained therein may be considered as all extra-
judicial admission, said pleadiugs should be offered formally in evidence.
If not offered in evidence the admission contained therein will not be
cousidered.s
QUESTION 10. The origi,nal complaint in the Eiectment Case
read,s: -
"The pluintiffs and, the defen'il,ant Macaria A. Bautista at'e the lngal
heirs anil neat'est of kins of Margarita Torres, who ilieil 'tn Tanza, Caai'te
on December 20, 7997."
The statement, accord,ing to petitioner, is an ad,mission of her legiti,'
nwtion and is controlling in the determitwti,on of her participati'on in the
tlisputed, pro'perty. In the Amended Complaint filed' by pri,aate respon'
d,ents in the same Eicctment Case, the und,erlined' portion uas d'eleted' so
that the statement sintply read: "That tlre plnintiffs are the legal heirs
and, nearest of lcin of Margarita Torres, who ilteil at Tanza, Caai'te on

raPeople vs. Hewkins,2T lll,zd 339" 189 N.E. 2d,262,253 (1963): "An accusid
by stipulation may waive' the necessity'of proof of all or part of the case, which
tf,e People have alleged ageinst him, and having done so, he cannot complain o-tt
evidence whlch he stipulated into the record," following People vs. Hare, 26 lll. zd't
321, 186 N.E. 2d 1?8, 1?9 (1962). But see United States vs. Cockerham, 476 F. 2d
642, 645 (C.A,-D.C.-19?3) holding defendant has no right to stipulate all facts of a
crime if it would tend to produce an inflammatory impact on the jury. A plea of
guilty has been likened to a stipulation that no proof need be presented, thereby
eupplying both evidence and verdict, thus ending the controversy. Albright vs. State,
60 Ala. App.480,280 So.2d f86 (19?3).
rslreland vs. Stalbaum, 162 Neb. 630, 77 N.W. 2d 156 (1966).
r0 Khulmann i's. Platte Valley Irrigation Dist., 166 Neb. 498, 89 N.W. 2d ?68
(1e58).
1? Ireland vs. Stalbaum, supra.
rs Backfield vs. Unitd States, 197 U.S. 442, 26 S. Ct. 466, 49 L. Ed. 826 (1904);
State vs. Sorrell, 109 Ariz. 171, 506 P. 2d 1066, 106? (19?3). In this case the parties
(in a robbery case) had stipulated that the lights (in the patking lot where the
robbery took plaee) were always off after 10:00 p.m. The court held coungel could
not introduce evidence with respect to whether the lishts were on or not at 2:00 a-nt.
when the robbery occurred.
1e Ireland vs. Stalbaum, supra.
20Buenaventura vs. Villar, et al.; Director of Lands vr. Abaloteo, et al.; (CA)
58 O.G. 3100; Director of Lands vs. Ccurt of Appeals, 196 SCRA 94.
 I

JO RULES OF COURT SEC. 4, RULE T2O

I)ecenrbe'r 90, 7937." trVhat is the effect of tlte am,ended co'tttplai'nt on

the admissions corutained, in the original cou,plaint?
ANSWER. In virtue thereof, the Amended Complaint takes the
pl:r.ce -
of the original. The latter is regarded as abandoned and ceases to
per{orm any further function as a pleading. The origiltal complaint uo
ionger forms part of the record. (Reynes vs. Compattia General de
'labacos, 21 Phil. 416).
If petitioner had desired to utilize the original conrplaint she shottltl
have offered it in evidence. Having been amendecl, the origin:rl complaint
lost its character as a judicial admission, which would have required no
proof, ilnd became merely an extlnjudicial admission, the admissibility of
u'hich, as evidence, required its formal offer. Contrary to petitioner's
submission, therefole, there can be no estoppei by extraiudicial atlmission
made in the original cornplaint, for failure to offer it in evidence. (Javel-
l:rna \rs. D. O. Plaza, Iinterprises, Inc., 32 SCRA 2611.rt
QUESTION 11. What is tlte effect of u iud,icis'I adnission?
ANSWER.
-
Under the rules, a judicirl aclmission cannot be con-
traflicted unless -previonsly shown to have been made thrtr palpable mistake
or that no such admission was made.22
A1:rdmission in a pleading ou whit:ir a paltl' goes to trial is colclusive
agrinst him unless the court in its reasonable discretion allows the pl_eatler
tJ withctrarv, explain or modify it if it aplrelrs to have been made by
improvidence or mistake23 or that no such admission was made, i.e., "not
in the sense in rvhich the admission rvits made to appeal"' oi' "the admis-
sion was taken out of context."2{
xr Torres vs. court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 24. See also Bastida vs. Menzi co.,
58 Phil.223; Lucido vs. Calupitan, et 41.,2? Phil. 148.
:2 Sec. 4, Rule 129, Rules of Court, as amended.
Three changes have been made:
1) l,he admission of a party may be vcrbal or NriLten, not ouly in the pleadings.
2't The admission is made in the course of thc procecdines iu the sanre case'
Bi The arlmission may be contradicted not only by showing. that it lvas made
through palpable mistake, but also by shorving that no such admission 'n'as made.
As;do from admissiorrs in plcadings. adnrissions obtained through depositions,
written interrogatories or requests for atlmission filed with the court constitute
judicial admissions which do riot require proof. i'eria, Reaised Rulcs on Eaitlence
Annotated (Philippi.nc Legal Stucliei, Ser"lee No.4), p.4; See also llliuttes ol the
Raaieio tr, C ontnrittee.
2ilKanopka vs. Kanopka, 164 A. 144, llg Conn.30,80 A.L.R. 619; 31 C.J.S. 1171.
!r See Minutes of the Revision Committee.
Similarly, we find no erl.or in the denial by the Trial Court of plaintiff-appellant'.s
Motion to recall or corleet sone pre-trial admission. Pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 20 of
the Rules of Court, the Order entered at the pre-trial controls the subsequent eourse
of the action. I'urthermore, under Rule 129, Section 3, it is necessery for a partl'
rvho desires to be relieved of the effects of admissions in the pleadjngs and any admis-
eions made in the course of the trial, to show that the admission had been made
through palpable mistake. In this case, that there 'q'as no such palpable mistake is
shown by the fact that the year "1928" was stated not only in paragraph 4 of the
Complaint, but repeated in the Prayer, and reiterated in the Pre-trial edmissiot:s.
Gotico oe. I*:Jte Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 136 SCRA 219,
Soriano is bound by his orvn petition and by the adjudication of bis claim made
in ecnsonance with his prayer. A party can not trifle with a court's decision or
order which he hinrself soug'ht with full awareness of his lights undcr the prernises,
by taking it or leaving it at pleasure. The allegations, statements or admissions
contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader. A party cannot
subsequently take a position eontradictory of, or inconsistent witrh, his pleadings,
(McDaniel vs. Apacible, 44 Phil, 448; 49 C.J. 128-134)' Specifieally, he is not allowed
sEc. 4, nuLE 129 EVIDENCE ot

A judici:rl admission cannot be contradicted unless first shown to

l:ave been made through lialpable mistake. Thus, rebuttal evidence which
tends to show that defendant's monetary obligation to plaintiff is more
than what the l;rtter had both alleged in her complaint and tried to prove
with his evidence-in-chief is a contradiction of a judicial adrnission. It is
not allowed especially since plriintiff has not shorvn ihat stritl iudicial
rdmission was made through palpable mistahe.ri
QUESTION 12. When lTilemon G. Salccdo, Jr. filed ltis anszoer
in th.e CFI (naw RTC) - of Maniln, he repeated,ly attegeil in th,e Dleading
that Bayani G. Salceilo is the president anrl general manttger of the F.M.
salcedo & sons, Inc. He also ocknowledged th,at fact in the joint motiort,
to dism'iss filed in ci,uil Cuse No. &.!t724 tohich Eayani G. sa,tced,o signed,
as Ttresiclent of said corporation uhile Filenton G. Salceda, Jr., affiteil lti-s
signature as a m,ere defendent (Erh. K). Wh,ut is the effect of the
arhn'ission in the answer?
ANSWER. This judicial admission is deemed conclusive zrnd is
rot allowed to be-contradicted, it not being cl:rimed that the same was mzrde
through a pa\rable mistake (Sec.2, Rule 129, Rules of Court). It is rrot
ccrrect to say that the said judicial admission was deemed supersedcrl
in view of the denial of said fact in the answer filed in the present action.
Aside from the circumsttrnce th:rt a llleading in one case cannot be super-
seded by a subsequent pleading in another, it is incongruous to maintain
that a judicinl admission may be deemed superseded at all.26
QUESTION 13. In a eertain insoluency Tn"oeeerling the .par.ties
<mtererl - u,herebu tlt,ey agreed, to tlte
into a sti,pu,lcttion sale of tlre good,s in
certain ruareltouse, agreeing further that the stor"age fees rlue for th,e
storage of the good,s will be ,paid from, the proceerls of the sale. One of
tlre parties signing the sti.pul.ation later on ref used to sanction payment
of storo,11e f ees for the goods, Are the .parties bouncl by tlte terms of the
sl iltu,lution?
ANSWER. Wrere property stored in a lv:rrehouse was claimed
-
to ask his moncy back ,w-hen the peso value is good, and Jater say he rvants to k&p
tlre l:rnd rvhcn tire pcsc purchasing power is down. Cu.nana.n os. Ampo,ro, et al.,
ttq Phil" 22r. See also Sta. Ana as. Maliwat, pl SCRA 1018; Surigos Angfa,rtvgW,
Assuraus Forening as. Qua Chee Gan, zl SCRA 15. 4
x.-,Elayda vs. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 349. See Justice A.L. Benipayo,
Survey of Significant 1991 Decisions in Evidence.
:8 Salcedo, et al. vs Salcedo, et a1., (CA) 72 O.G, 344. See also Fabia vs. Inter-
rliediate Appellate CourL, 133 SCRA 364; Vda" de Malasarte vs. Perez, et al. (CA)
75 O.G.2235; National h'rigation vs. Judge Regino, 192 SCRA 42; Western Agro
Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA ?09.
It is a familiar doctrine that an admission made in the pleadings cannot be contro-
lertcd by the party making such ndnission and are conclusive as to him, and that
ali proofs submitted by him contlary thereto or inconsistent therervith should be
ignoled, rvhether objection is inlerposed by the party or not (Cunanan vs. Amparo,
80 Phil.227i Eamirez vs. Orientalist Co.,38 Phil.634; McDaniel vs. Apacible,44
Phil, 248). Joe's Radto & Electrical Supply as. AIto Electroni.cs Corp.- anrl Alto
Surety & Insurs,nce Co., |nc,, 10t+ Phil.333; Lu.n,a us, Luna, g0 CAn (eS) 192,
It is true that no evidence was presented sholving the character of the possession,
held by the defendant of the lands in question, but such is unnecessary eonsidering
the admissions made by the plaintiffs in the complaint and in the stipulation of facts,
A careful anaiysis of the admission made in both pleading would reveal at once that
defendant has beeu in open, adverse and continuous possession of said lands since
at least 1916 up to 1949, or a period of 33 years. Espique, et al. us. Espique, S9
Phil. 448.

)
 RULES OF COURT sEc. 1, BULE 130

by different persons who entered into a written stipulation authorizing

ii" ol", and it was sold under the stipulation, the partigs are the
bound by
sale, the
lfr" t ti* and recitals contained in the stipulation, and after
cannot be changed or modified b)' any subsequent acts or
"Epof"Uo"
eonduct of the parties.r