State Prosecutors V. Muros A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 September 19, 1994 Art. III Facts

I.
A. 2. b.
STATE PROSECUTORS v. MUROS

A.M. No. RTJ-92-876
September 19, 1994
Art. III
FACTS:
The state prosecutors, who are also members of the DOJ Panel of Prosecution, filed a
complaint against the 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 present case
revolves around 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 two newspapers,
which the judge believes to be reputable and of national circulation, stating that the President
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the reported announcement of the Executive Department in the newspaper in effect repealed the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.
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the respondent is 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 No, 1353
thus it was premature for him to take judicial notice on this matter which is merely based on his
Prepared by: Maria Aileene A. Alfaro 1

I. A. 2. b.
personal knowledge and is not based on the public knowledge that the law requires for the court
to take judicial notice of. In order for the court to take judicial notice, three essentials requisites
should be present:
First, the matter must be one of common and general knowledge.
Second, it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain.
Third, 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 equivalent to 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.
Prepared by: Maria Aileene A. Alfaro 2

State Prosecutors V. Muros A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 September 19, 1994 Art. III Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Prosecutors V. Muros A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 September 19, 1994 Art. III Facts

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 Prosecutors V. Muros A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 September 19, 1994 Art. III Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I.

A. 2. b.

STATE PROSECUTORS v. MUROS

Prepared by: Maria Aileene A. Alfaro 1

Prepared by: Maria Aileene A. Alfaro 2

You might also like