State Prosecutors v Muros

236 SCRA 505, 19 September 1994

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announcement of the Executive Department in the newspaper in effect repealed the CB 960 and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.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in taking notice
on the statement of the president lifting the foreign exchange published in the newspaper as basis
for dismissing the caes?

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 presented:

The matter must be one of common and general knowledge;

It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain;
It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.

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.