RULE 129

SEC 2. DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTE

CANDELARIA VS PEOPLE
GR. 209386
case: crime of qualified theft
Facts:
Viron Transit Corporation (Viron) ordered 14,000 liters of diesel from United
Oil Petroleum (Unioil) owned by Lao. Petitioner Candelaria, employed as
truck driver by Lao, was dispatched together with his helper, Romano to
deliver the diesel fuel in Laon Laan. However, Lao was informed by Viron
that it had not yet received its order. Thereafter, Romano returned alone to
Unioil's office and reported that Candelaria poked a balisong at him. After
few days, NBI agents found the abandoned truck in Laguna, emptied of
diesel. Lao filed complaint for Qualified Theft against Candelaria.
The Mother of Lao, and Claro, dispatcher and driver of Unioil, corroborated
Lao's allegations on material points. Claro verified that it was Candelaria
who was tasked to deliver the diesel to Viron. Candelaria, in his defense,
demurred to the prosecution's evidence and argued that there was no
direct evidence that linked him to the commission of crime, as Lao has no
personal knowledge as to what actually happened to the diesel fuel.
Based on circumstantial evidence, RTC convicted Candelaria having found
present all the elements constituting the crime-- taking property belonging
to another without consent, with abuse of confidence. On appeal, CA
affirmed the conviction ruling that a finding of guilt need not always be
based on direct evidence but may also be based on circumstantial evidence
or evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in
issue may be established by inference. HOWEVER, CA modified the
amount which he was directed to indemnify Lao, fixing the same at
P14,000.00 in the absence of any supporting documents to prove
that the diesel fuel was indeed worth P497,000.00.
ISSUE:
WON CA correctly found Petitioner guilty of crime on the basis of
circumstantial evidence.--YES

WON the value of diesel considered as matter of public knowledge which

falls within the purview of the rules on discretionary judicial notice. ---YES
HELD:
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE--YES.
All the elements are present. Thru testimony of prosecution witness, it was
established that the truck with plate number PTA-945 was loaded with
diesel, driven by the petitioner for delivery was taken by him without
consent of Lao and that petitioner abused the confidence reposed upon him
by Lao. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a)
there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
It suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proven constitute
an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion
pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person;
the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent
with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and, at the same time,
inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilt. Corollary
thereto, a conviction based on circumstantial evidence must exclude each
and every hypothesis consistent with innocence.
Discretionary Judicial Notice-- YES
The imposable penalty for the crime of Qualified Theft depends upon the
value of thing stolen. Purposes of fixing the imposable penalty, the value of
property therefore must be proved through presentation of independent
and reliable corroborated estimate. More so, in the absence of such the
courts may either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or
fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant
circumstances of the case.
Court ruled that, the trial court can only take judicial notice of the value of
goods which are matters of public knowledge or are capable of
unquestionable demonstration. In this case, Candelaria has been found
guilty of stealing diesel fuel the value of it may be readily gathered
from price lists published by the Department of Energy (DOE). In
this regard, the value of diesel fuel involved herein may then be

considered as a matter of public knowledge which falls within the

purview of the rules on discretionary judicial notice. Even though
prosecution only presented the uncorroborated testimony of Lao to prove
the value of diesel-- taking judicial notice of the fact that the pump price of
diesel in August 2006 (the time of commission of crime) is sufficient; as
the value can be independently ascertained from DOE's price
publication. In this case, RTC's valuation is correct amounting to
P497,000.00

HABAGAT GRILL VS DMC-URBAN PROPERTY DEVELOPER

GR.NO. 155110
FACTS:
David m. Consunji, Inc. acquired residential lot in Davao. It transferred said
lot to its sister company, respondent DMC-Urban Property Developer.
Complaint for Forcible entry was filed in MTC with allegation that Biraogo
forcibly entered lot thru strategy and stealth, and thereby constructed
Habagat grill. Biraogo denied the allegation and averred that Habagat Grill
was built in 1992 inside Municipal Reservation No. 1050 or
Presidential Proclamation No.20 and not in the lot claimed by
respondent. A team was constituted with task to determine where
Habagat was precisely located. A report submitted states that Habagat Grill
was occupring 934 square meters of the lot in question. MTC rendered
decision dismissing the case on ground of lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal, CA ruled that MTC had jurisdiction over the Complaint for
Forcible entry. CA gave greater weight to the testimony of respondent's real

property manager, since he had personal knowledge.

ISSUES:
Whether the MTC can take judicial notice under Section 2, Rule 129
of the Rules of Court.
HELD:
No.
Trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the metes and bounds of the
property covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 20 . Although the lower
court may take judicial notice of PD No. 20, it may not do so in regard to the
metes and bounds. "Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which
judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already
know them." Its object is to save time, labor and expense in securing and
introducing evidence on matters that are not ordinarily capable of dispute
or actually bona fide disputed, and the tenor of which can safely be
assumed from the tribunal's general knowledge or from a slight search on
its part.
Municipal courts may take judicial notice of the municipal ordinances in
force in the municipality in which they sit. HOWEVER, such notice is limited
to what the law is and what it states.
In this casem the trial court took judicial notice of the existence of
Presidential Proclamation No. 20, which declared Times Beach a recreation
center. The MTC also took judicial notice of the location of the beach, made
its own estimate of the location of the metes and bounds of the property
mentioned by the law.
The location of Habagat Grill cannot be resolved by merely taking judicial
notice of Presidential Proclamation No. 20; such location is precisely at the
core of the dispute in this case. Neither may the MTC take discretionary
judicial notice under Section 2 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, because
the exact boundaries of the lot covered by that law are not a matter of

public knowledge capable of unquestionable demonstration. Neither may

these be known to judges because of their judicial functions. Hence, the CA
was correct in disregarding the findings of the trial courts, because they
had erred in taking judicial notice of the exact metes and bounds of the
property.

SEC.3 JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHEN HEARING NECESSARY

PEOPLE VS TUNDAG
GR. NO. 135695-96
FACTS:
Mary Ann Tundag filed two separate complaints for incestuous rape against
his father, Tomas Tundag. Complainant is a 13 year old girls1who does not
know how to read and write and has an IQ of 76% which is a very low
general mental ability and was living with her father. She alleged that she
was raped twice. After the commission of the second rape, Mary Ann went
to her neighbor Bebie Cabahug and told her what happened to her. They
reported this to the police and was later examined by a doctor who
concluded that she was not a virgin anymore. The accused denies and
contends that he was working and went home tired. Appellant was found
guilty of qualified rape, and penalty of death was imposed.
ISSUE:
WON imposition of death penalty is correct.--NO
follow up-- WON judicial notice of age of victim is properNO.
HELD:
Rape of minor daughter by her father is qualified rape and heinous crime. It
was sufficiently alleged and proven that the offender was the victims
father. However, the victims age was not properly and sufficiently
proved beyond reasonable doubt. She testified that she was thirteen
years old at the time of the rapes. However, she admitted that she did not

know exactly when she was born because her mother did not tell her. She
further said that her birth certificate was likewise with her mother. For
failure to secure birth certificate, court request for judicial notice that the
victim is below 18 years old. However, the court's judicial notice is
erroneous.
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly
take and act on without proof because they already know them. Under the
Rules of Court, judicial notice may either be mandatory or discretionary.
With respect to other matters not falling within the mandatory or
discretionary judicial notice, the court can take judicial notice of a fact
pursuant to the procedure in Section 3 of Rule 129: Judicial notice, when
hearing necessary. During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on
request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any
matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its
own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any
matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive
of a material issue in the case.
In this case, judicial notice of the age of the victim is improper,
despite the defense counsels admission, thereof acceding to the
prosecutions motion. As required by Section 3 of Rule 129, as to any
other matters such as age, a hearing is required before courts can
take judicial notice of such fact. Generally, the age of the victim may be
proven by the birth or baptismal certificate of the victim, or in the absence
thereof, upon showing that said documents were lost or destroyed, by other
documentary or oral evidence sufficient for the purpose.
There's a need for independent proof of the age of the victim, aside from
testimonial evidence from the victim or her relatives. The minority of the
victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime
itself. Considering the statutory requirement in Section 335 of RPC, the
failure to sufficiently establish victim's age by independent proof is a bar to
conviction for rape in its qualified form. Appellant was convicted of simple
rape, sentenced to reclusion perpetua.