People vs Kulais

GR. No 100901-08
July 16, 1998
Facts:
Felix Rosario and several other public officers of the of Zamboanga City, was
kidnapped for ransom by the accused appellants. They were released after
payment.
Five informations for kidnapping for ransom were filed before the RTC of
Zambaonga against the accused. Another three informations for kidnapping
were also filed which set forth identical allegations save for the names of the
victims.
9 of the 12 accused were apprehended and then the court found several of
the accused including appellant Kulais guilty of 5 counts of kidnapping for
ransom and 1 count of kidnapping a woman and a public officer. Trial court
based their decision on the testiomines of victims and held that no taint of
evil or dishonest motive was imputed or imputable to prosecution
witnesses.
Later on, several of the accused filed their Joint notice of appeal. However,
they withdrew it because of their application for amnesty, except for Jailon
Kulais who still seeks reconsideration of the SC.
One of the issue raised by the accused was that due process was not
observed in taking judicial notice of a material testimony GIVEN IN ANOTHER
CASE by Lt. Feliciano, who allegedly was the team leader of the government
troops which allegedly captured the accused-appellants in an encounter;
thereby, depriving the accused-appellants their right to cross-examine him.
Issue:
Whether the due process of the accused was denied in taking judicial
notice of a material testimony given in another case
Held:
No. Due process was still observed.
As a general rule, courts should not take judicial notice of the evidence
presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending
in the same court, or have been heard and are actually pending before the
same judge. This is especially true in criminal cases, where the accused has
the constitutional right to confront and cross-examin the witnesses against
him.

However, even if the court a quo did take judicial notice of the
testimony of Lt. Feliciano, it did not use such testimony in deciding
the cases against the appelant. Hence, appellant Kulais was not
denied due process. His conviction was based mainly on the postive
identification made by some of the kidnap victims.