State Prosecutor V Judge Muro

STATE PROSECUTORS vs.JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO.
A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 September 19, 1994 Yes. The order was issued motu proprio, i.e.,
without any motion to dismiss filed by counsel for the
Facts: A consolidated 11 criminal cases were filed against accused, without giving an opportunity for the
Imelda Marcos for Violation of Central Bank Foreign prosecution to be heard, and solely on the basis of
Exchange Restrictions in CB Circular No. 960, in relation newspaper reports announcing that the President has
to the penal provisions of Sec. 34 of R.A. 265, as amended. lifted all foreign exchange restrictions.
Marcos pleaded not guilty and the supposed trial dates The newspaper report is not the publication
for the continues presentation of evidence by the required by law in order that the enactment can become
prosecution was set. effective and binding. Laws take effect after fifteen days
On August 10, 1992, President Fidel Ramos following the completion of their publication in the
announced of the lifting by the government of all foreign Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation
exchange restrictions and the arrival at such decision by unless it is otherwise provided (Section 1, Executive Order
the Monetary Board as per statement of Central Bank No. 200). The full text of CB Circular 1353, series of 1992,
Governor Jose Cuisia. This was published by the PDI and entitled ‘Further Liberalizing Foreign Exchange
Daily globe newpaper on August 11, 1992. On August 13, Regulation’ was published in the August 27, 1992 issue of
1992, basing on the sole basis of said newpaper reports, the Manila Chronicle, the Philippine Star and the Manila
Judge Muro dismissed the 11 cases. This is without giving Bulletin. Per certification of the CB Corporate Affairs
the prosecution an opportunity to file a motion to quash Office, CB Circular No. 1353 took effect on September 2 . .
or a comment, or even to show cause why the cases .
against accused Marcos should not be dismissed Considering that respondent judge admittedly
Muro claimed that the President announced the had not seen the official text of CB Circular No. 1353, he
said lifting of all foreign exchange restrictions and it is was in no position to rule judiciously on whether CB
also reported that Central Bank Governor Cuisia said that Circular No. 960, under which the accused Mrs. Marcos is
the Monetary Board arrived at such decision. As such, the charged, was already repealed by CB Circular No. 1353.
court has to give full confidence and credit to the A cursory reading of the . . . provision would have
reported announcement of the Executive, specially from readily shown that the repeal of the regulations on non-
the highest official of that department. The court as well trade foreign exchange transactions is not absolute, as
are charged with judicial notice of matters which are of there is a provision that with respect to violations of
public knowledge, without introduction of proof, the former regulations that are the subject of pending actions
announcement published in at least the 2 newspapers or investigations, they shall be governed by the
cited are reputable and of national circulation. regulations existing at the time the cause of action
The court claimed that it was deprived of (arose). Thus his conclusion that he has lost jurisdiction
jurisdiction, and, therefore, motu, prop(r)io had to over the criminal cases is precipitate and hasty. Had he
dismiss all the eleven cases aforementioned "for not to do awaited the filing of a motion to dismiss by the accused,
so opens this Court to charges of trying cases over which and given opportunity for the prosecution to
it has no more jurisdiction;. comment/oppose the same, his resolution would have
On August 17, 1992, the adviser of the President been the result of deliberation, not speculation.
amend the prior announcement stating that it is not an
absolute lifting but is subject to a saving clause stating
that pending cases involving violation of Circular No. 960 II Whether Muro is correct in taking judicial notice of
are excepted from the coverage. The prosecution filed a the announcement of the President as a matter of
letter of complaint with ignorance of the law, grave public knowledge in the newpaper?
misconduct and violations of Rules 2.01, 3.01 and 3.02 of No.The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the
the Code of Judicial Conduct. wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take
judicial notice is to be exercised by courts with caution;
Issues: care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists; and
I Whether there is grave abuse of discretion in every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly
issuing the order of dismissal? resolved in the negative. 10
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice
have three material 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. 11 The provincial guide in
determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially
known is that of notoriety. 12 Hence, it can be said that
judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public
records and facts of general notoriety. 13
To say that a court will take judicial notice of a
fact is merely another way of saying that the usual form of
evidence will be dispensed with if knowledge of the fact
can be otherwise acquired. 14 This is because the court
assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not be
disputed. 15 But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge.
The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the
judicial knowledge of the court, and he is not authorized
to make his individual knowledge of a fact, not generally
or professionally known, the basis of his action. Judicial
cognizance is taken only of those matters which are
"commonly" known. 16
Things of "common knowledge," of which courts
take judicial notice, may be matters coming to the
knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary
experiences of life, or they may be matters which are
generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of
ready and unquestioned demonstration. 17 Thus, facts
which are universally known, and which may be found in
encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are
judicially noticed, provided they are of such universal
notoriety and so generally understood that they may be
regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of
every person. 18
Respondent judge, in the guise of exercising
discretion and on the basis of a mere newspaper account
which is sometimes even referred to as hearsay evidence
twice removed, took judicial notice of the supposed lifting
of foreign exchange controls, a matter which was not and
cannot be considered of common knowledge or of general
notoriety. Worse, he took cognizance of an administrative
regulation which was not yet in force when the order of
dismissal was issued. Jurisprudence dictates that judicial
notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes
effective. 19 The reason is simple. A law which is not yet in
force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of common
knowledge capable of ready and unquestionable
demonstration, which is one of the requirements before a
court can take judicial notice of a fact.
Evidently, it was impossible for respondent judge, and it
was definitely not proper for him, to have taken
cognizance of CB Circular No. 1353, when the same was
not yet in force at the time the improvident order of
dismissal was issued.

State Prosecutor V Judge Muro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Prosecutor V Judge Muro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Prosecutor V Judge Muro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE PROSECUTORS vs.JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO.

You might also like