What Need Not Be Proved

I. INTRODUCTION. Principles on the correlation

between allegations, proof, and favorable
judgment.
A. Each Party Must Prove His Own
Allegation. Allegations in pleadings do not prove
themselves. No party wins by having the most
allegations, or that the allegation of causes of actions
or defenses are crafted in the strongest and most
persuasive language. All allegations remain but as
allegations or propositions. Hence every party to a
case, who desires that a favorable judgment be
rendered in his favor, must present evidence to
support his claim, cause of action or defense be it in
the form of object evidence, documents, or
testimonies of witnesses.
 Likewise, the court limits itself to
only such evidence as were properly
presented and admitted during the
trial and does not consider matters
or facts outside the court.
B. A Party Can Not Prove What He Did Not Allege
(Non Alegata Non Proba). A party, however, is not
authorized to introduce evidence on matters
which he never alleged. Hence, plaintiff will not be
permitted to prove a cause of action which is not
stated in his complaint, and the defendant will not
be permitted to prove a defense which he never
raised in his Answer. In criminal cases, the
Prosecution is not permitted to prove a crime not
described in the Information or to prove any
aggravating circumstance not alleged in the
Information.
C. But a party may be relieved from presenting evidence
on certain matters, such as on the following:

1. Matters or facts subject of judicial notice (Rule 129)

2. Matters or facts subject of judicial admission (Rule 129)
3. Matters or facts which are legally presumed (Rule 131)
4. Matters or facts stipulated upon
5.Matters or facts which are exclusively within the
knowledge of the opposing party
6. Matters or facts which are irrelevant
7. Matters or facts in the nature of negative allegations
subject to certain exceptions
 JUDICIAL NOTICE
(I. CONCEPT)
Refers to the act of the court in taking
cognizance of matters as true or as existing
without need of the introduction of evidence,
or the authority of the court to accept certain
matters as facts even if no evidence of their
existence has been presented. The action is
often expressed thus” “The court takes judicial
notice of…”
 EXAMPLES
*The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that
Mayor Miranda is the City Mayor of
Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental;
*The Court takes judicial notice of the Executive
Order No. __________ that he executed on
______________;
*The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that
Barangay Camingawan is a part of Kabankalan
City.
 Judicial notice is a rule in the law of
evidence that allows a fact to be introduced
into evidence if the truth of that fact is so
notorious or well known, or so authoritatively
attested, that it cannot reasonably be
doubted. This is done upon the request of the
party seeking to rely on the fact at issue.
 Facts and materials admitted
under judicial notice are accepted
without being formally introduced by
a witness or other rule of evidence,
and even if one party wishes to lead
evidence to the contrary.
 Judicial notice is frequently
used for the simplest, most
obvious common sense facts,
such as which day of the week
corresponded to a particular
calendar date.
 It is the authority of a judge to
accept as facts certain matters
which are of common knowledge
from sources which guarantee
accuracy or are a matter of official
record, without the need for
evidence establishing the fact.
 Other examples of matters given
judicial notice are public and court
records, tides, times of sunset and
sunrise, government rainfall and
temperature records, known historic
events or the fact that ice melts in
the sun.
 II. Purpose

To save time, labor and

expenses. It is based on
expediency and convenience.
 The function of judicial notice is
that, it displaces evidence, since as
it stands for proof, it fulfils the
object which evidence is designed
to fulfil and makes evidence
unnecessary.
 It is based upon obvious reasons
of convenience and expediency and
operates to save trouble, expense,
and time which would be lost in
establishing, in the ordinary way,
facts which do not admit of
contradiction.
IN SUM,

Judicial Notice is the

cognizance of certain facts
which judges may properly take
and act upon without proof
because they are supposed to be
known to them. It is based on
considerations of expediency
and convenience. It displaces
evidence, being equivalent to
proof.
Note: Judicial notice fulfils the
objective which the evidence
intends to achieve. It is not
equivalent to judicial knowledge or
that which is based on the personal
knowledge of the court; rather, it
is the cognizance of “common
knowledge.” Judicial notice
relieves the parties from the
necessity of introducing evidence
to prove the fact notified. It
makes evidence unnecessary.
 III. General Classification of Matters
Subject of Notice
A. Adjudicative Matters- those facts related to the case under
consideration and which may affect the outcome thereof.

1. In a case where the accused set up denial and alibi being then
in Manila, court may take judicial notice that normal travel time
by bus from Manila to Baguio City is between 6 to 7 hours

2. Where the accused set up accidental shooting, the court may take
notice that a revolver does not fire accidentally because pressure
must be applied to the trigger

3. Where a witness claimed to have seen a person by the light of day at

around 6:00 PM on December some 10 meters away, courts may
take notice of the shortened days in December and that by 6:30
there is no more day light.
B. Legislative Matters- those facts which
relate either to: (i) the existence of a law or
legal principle (ii) the reason, purpose or
philosophy behind the law or of a legal
principle as formulated by the legislature or
the court (iii) the law or principle itself.
 EXAMPLES:
1. The need to protect Filipino OFWs as a primary reason behind the Migrant
Workers Act or the increase in the incidence of drug related crimes as reason
for the increase in the penalty for violation of the drug law
2. That the passage of the Anti Terrorism Law and the Anti-Money Laundering
Law were influenced by the demands of the international community
3. Taking notice of the increase in the age of criminal liability
4. That documents presented in the Register of Deeds are recorded according
to the date and time of their presentation
5. The policy of the law as regards bail in heinous crimes or of the policy of
the state against the use of illegal means to obtain evidence
6. Gun Ban during election period
 IV. Limitations

The taking of judicial notice maybe abused

and might unfairly favor a party who is unable
to prove a material point. Conversely the non-
taking notice of a fact might unduly burden a
party where proof is not readily available or
impossible to obtain and proof thereof is
unnecessary, but still the court refuses to take
notice of the fact.
A. As to what may be taken notice of: the
matter must be one covered by section 1 or
is authorized under Section 2 of Rule 129.

B. As to the procedure: there must be a prior

hearing pursuant to Section 3.
Q: What are the requisites of judicial
notice?
1. 1.The matter must be one of common and
general knowledge;
2. 2. It must be well and authoritatively
settled and not doubtful or uncertain;
and
3. 3. It must be one which is not subject
to a reasonable dispute in that it is
either:
a.Generally known within the territorial
jurisdiction of the trial court; or
b. Capable of accurate and ready
determination by resorting to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questionable (Expertravel & Tours, Inc.
v. CA, G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005).
NOTE: The principal guide in
determining what facts may
be assumed to be judicially
known is that of notoriety.
The test of notoriety is
whether the fact involved is
so notoriously known as to
make it proper to assume its
existence without proof.
Q: When is a matter considered
“common knowledge”?
A: They are those matters coming
to the knowledge of men
generally in the course of
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.
NOTE: 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. A court
however cannot take judicial notice
of any fact which, in part, is
dependent on the existence or non-
existence of a fact of which the
court has no constructive knowledge
(Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. CA,
G.R. No. 152392, May 26, 2005).
Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A
court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history,
forms of government and symbols of nationality,
the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the
official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the National Government of the
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of
time, and the geographical divisions. (1a)
 OLD PROVISION REVISED PROVISION
A court shall take judicial notice, A court shall take judicial notice,
without the introduction of evidence, without the introduction of
of the existence and territorial extent evidence, of the existence and
of states, their political history, forms territorial extent of states, their
of government and symbols of
political history, forms of
nationality, the law of nations, the
admiralty and maritime courts of the
government and symbols of
world and their seals, the political nationality, the law of nations, the
constitution and history of the admiralty and maritime courts of
Philippines, the official acts of the the world and their seals, the
legislative, executive and judicial political constitution and history
departments of the Philippines, the of the Philippines, the official acts
laws of nature, the measure of time, of the legislative, executive and
and the geographical divisions. (1a) judicial departments of the
National Government of the
Philippines, the laws of nature,
the measure of time, and the
geographical divisions. (1a)
 INTRODUCTION
If a fact falls under any of the matters
enumerated, then the court may not compel a
party to present evidence thereon and
necessarily, it may not decide against the
party for the latter’s failure to present
evidence on the matter. The enumeration is
exclusive.
I. As to Foreign States: their existence and
territorial extent; forms of government
(monarchial, presidential, parliamentary,
royalty), symbols of nationality (flag, national
costume, anthem).

A. Limitation: However, the recognition of a

foreign state or government is subject to the
decision of the political leadership.
II. The Law of Nations: the body of principles, usages,
customs and unwritten precepts observed by, and
which governs, the relations between and among
states.

A. Examples: (i) The Principle of Equality of States (ii)

Sovereign Immunity of visiting Heads of States and
the protocol observed for said visiting dignitary such
as the 21 gun salute (iii) The Diplomatic Immunity of
foreign diplomatic representatives (iv) recognition of
piracy as a crime against humanity

III. The Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction of the

World and their Seals
IV. The Philippine as a state

A. Its constitution and political history: the political set up of

the government

1. As a Spanish colony, American colony, as a commonwealth, as

a republic; Martial law years; the political upheavals such as
the assassination of B. Aquino, EDSA I and II
2. The cabinet system in the Office of the President
3. Previous Presidents; the trial and conviction of Erap and his
subsequent pardon
4. The administrative division into regions, provinces,
municipalities, cities, barangays and into sitios or puroks
5. Manila as the capital and the capital towns of the provinces;
the location of major rivers, lakes and mountains
6. Contemporary political developments such as the ongoing
communist rebellion and muslin secessionist movement
7. Wars in which the Philippines participated
B. The official acts of the legislature, executive and
judicial departments

1. That congress is a bicameral body; the form of

leadership in each house; the process of legislation; the
committee system; laws which were passed
2. State visits of the presidents; ratification of treaties;
executive orders and decrees; declaration of state of
emergencies
3. Grants of amnesty
4. Holding of peace negotiations with the rebels
5. Membership in the UN and other regional
organizations as well as the hosting of the ASEAN in
Cebu
6. Decisions of appellate courts
V. The Laws of Nature:

Examples:

1. Laws relating to science which are so well known such as that the DNA of
each person being distinct, or blood groupings as proof of filiation; or of
finger prints and dententures being distinct and dissimilar from one
person to another.
2. The law of gravity, mathematical equations, weights and measurements
3. The solar system, the planets and stars
4. The composition and decay of matter
5. The birth and period of gestation of human beings
6. The occurrence of natural phenomenon provided these are constant,
immutable and certain, otherwise these occurrences are “freaks of
nature”
a). the changing of the season
b). the cycle of day and night
c). the difference in time between places on earth
d). the variation in vegetation
VI. Measures of Time: into seconds, minutes,
days, weeks months and years

VII. Geographical Division of the World such as

the number and location of the continents,
and the major oceans, the division into
hemispheres; longitudes and latitudes
 In sum, judicial notice is mandatory if the fact
sought to be proved are: (Section 1, Rule 129)
1. Existence and territorial extent of States;
2. Political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality;
3. Law of nations;
4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their
seals;
5. Political constitution and history of the Philippines;
6. Official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
8. Measure of time; and
9. Geographical divisions
 EXAMPLE
(Judicial Notice of the Laws of Nature)

PEOPLE V. MENESES
G.R. NO. 111742
MARCH 26, 1998
JUSTICE KAPUNAN
 FACTS OF THE CASE
Eyewitness identification is vital
evidence and, in most cases, decisive
of the success or failure of the
prosecution. Subject of the Court's
scrutiny in the instant criminal case is
the credibility of a child's alleged
eyewitness account on which the
appellant's conviction by the trial
court was solely anchored.
 At around three o'clock in the early
morning of December 15, 1991, thirty-
three year old Cesar Victoria was stabbed
to death while sleeping along with his
seven-year old son Christopher in a rented
makeshift room in Tondo, Manila.

Accused Roman Meneses was charged

with the murder of Cesar Victoria, in an
Information dated December 27, 1991
 The prosecution presented the
following witnesses:
1) Christopher R. Victoria;
2) SPO3 Jaime Mendoza;
3) SPO3 Eduardo Gonzales; and
4) Medico-Legal Officer Florante
Baltazar.
 Christopher R. Victoria testified
that he witnessed the stabbing of his
father. He testified that while he lived
with his Kuya Odeng on Kasipagan
Street, Tondo, on the night of
December 14, 1991, he went to his
father's rented makeshift room to
sleep after he was whipped by his
brother.
 Christopher's other siblings lived
elsewhere in Tondo, and his mother
was living in Quezon. He further
testified that he was awakened from
sleep and saw his father being
stabbed in the heart with a "veinte
nueve." After the assailant ran away,
Christopher cried.
 SPO3 Jaime Mendoza, a
police investigator of the Western
Police District testified that on
December 15, 1991, a kagawad of
Barangay 123, Zone 9, Tondo,
Manila called the precinct
informing him that Cesar Victoria
was found stabbed to death.
 With three policemen, Mendoza
immediately went to the crime scene, arriving
there at around three o'clock in the morning.
Mendoza described the scene as a makeshift
room about three by five square meters. The
room was connected by a divider with a door
to a house owned by the Spouses Ardiete, the
victim's landlord. The policemen saw the
victim's bloodied body, with several stab
wounds, lying on a wooden bed.
 Mendoza testified that when he
questioned Christopher, who was then in
the house, Christopher could not identify
nor describe the attacker, but that the
child said he could identify him because
he knew his face. On re-direct
examination however, Mendoza said that
Christopher identified the assailant as
appellant.
 Mendoza and the policemen brought
Christopher to the precinct where his
statement was taken. After the appellant
was arrested and turned over to the
investigators on December 26, 1991,
Christopher was again brought to the
precinct where, during a confrontation
with appellant, Christopher identified
appellant as the person who stabbed his
father.
 SPO3 Eduardo C. Gonzales testified that at about
two o'clock in the morning of December 25, 1991,
he arrested appellant. The arrest was based on the
report of Angelina Victoria, appellant's wife, who
implicated appellant in the crime. The policemen
found appellant at the place pointed to by Angelina,
which was a flower box at the corner of Tuazon and
Mithi Streets. Frisked, appellant yielded a balisong.
After announcing that they were policemen and
that appellant was being arrested as the suspect in
the stabbing of Cesar Victoria, Gonzales and his
companions brought appellant to Police Station No.
2, who was later transferred to the Homicide
Section.
 On cross-examination, Gonzales
stated that he and his companions
merely "invited" appellant to go
with them to the police station for
investigation, but that at the
police station, appellant verbally
admitted to stabbing Cesar
Victoria.
 Medico-Legal Officer Florante P. Baltazar of the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory
conducted the autopsy on the victim. He testified in
court that the cause of death of the victim, as
stated in his Autopsy Report, was "cardio-
respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage
secondary to stab wounds," and that the victim
sustained five external injuries, two of which were
fatal. He opined that based on the direction of the
stab wounds, the victim was not lying down when
stabbed, but could have been standing or sitting
when stabbed by the attacker who could have also
been standing.
 The lone witness for the defense was the
appellant himself, Roman Meneses. He interposed
the defense of denial and alibi. He testified that the
victim, who was his brother-in-law, and Christopher
used to live with him and his wife Angelina, the
victim's sister, in their house at A. Tuazon Street,
Tondo, Manila. On the day of the crime, he alleged
that he was in San Isidro, Mexico, Pampanga, and
had been there since the tenth or eleventh of that
month, after he had a misunderstanding with
Angelina.
 He further testified that he was
arrested on December 24, 1991,
without a warrant after being
implicated in the crime by his wife.
He was brought to the police
station where he was mauled by
policemen; he never admitted
though to killing Cesar Victoria,
his brother-in-law.
 Meneses also denied that there
was animosity between him and his
brother-in-law. In fact, when Cesar
was stabbed after he (Cesar) got out
of prison, he even brought him to the
hospital and paid for his medical
expenses. Meneses even sent his
nephew Christopher to school.
 RULING OF THE SC
(ACQUITTED)

The Court find that the

trustworthiness of the
identification of appellant by
Christopher is dubious, raising
reasonable doubt in the mind of
the Court as to appellant's
culpability.
 It was established that the crime took place in
the wee hours of the morning, before the crack of
dawn, at around three o'clock. The court can take
judicial notice of the "laws of nature,“ such as in
the instant case, that at around three in the
morning during the Christmas season, it is still
quite dark and that daylight comes rather late in
this time of year. Nowhere in the description of the
crime scene by witness SPO3 Mendoza in his
testimony was it established that there was light or
illumination of any sort by which Christopher could
see the attacker.
 The crime took place in a makeshift room
measuring about three by five square meters.
While the room had a door, there was no
mention of a window which could have
allowed entry of some kind of light from the
outside. It is highly improbable that a young
boy, just roused from sleep and his eyes
adjusting to the unlit room, could identify the
attacker, much less identify the knife used, as
Christopher did, as a "veinte nueve."
 The prosecution failed to paint a crystal-
clear picture of the environment by which
Christopher could have made an accurate
and reliable identification of the attacker.
Christopher's testimony being improbable,
is not credible. Evidence is credible when it
is "such as the common experience of
mankind can approve as probable under
the circumstances. We have no test of the
truth of human testimony, except its
conformity to our knowledge, observation,
and experience."
 EXAMPLE
(The Court took judicial notice of the existence of both
barangay Tigbe and barangay Bigte, in Norzagaray,
Bulacan)

VICENTE DEL ROSARIO Y NICOLAS

v. PEOPLE +
G.R. NO. 142295, MAY 31, 2001
JUSTICE PARDO
 FACTS OF THE CASE
Accused Vicente del Rosario was found
guilty of violation of P. D. No. 1866 of the
Regional Trial Court of Malolos.

Allegedly, sometime in May 1996, the

police received a report that accused Vicente
del Rosario was in possession of certain
firearms without the necessary licenses.
 Acting upon the report, the PNP Criminal
Investigation Group (CIDG) inquired from the PNP
Firearms and Explosive Division whether or not the
report was true. The PNP Firearms and Explosives
Division issued a certification stating that per
records in his office, the accused is not a
licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and
caliber. Armed with the said certification, the police
applied for a search warrant to enable them to
search the house of accused.
 Upon the issuance of the warrant, a team
led by P/Sr. Insp. Adique went to Norzagaray
to serve the warrant. Before proceeding to the
residence of the accused, the police officers
requested Barangay Chairman Rogelio de Silva
and Barangay Kagawad Aurelio Panteleon to
accompany them in the implementation of
the warrant. Upon arrival at the house of
accused, the police officers introduced
themselves to his wife.
 When the accused came out,
P/Sr. Insp. Adique informed him
that they had a search warrant
and that they were authorized to
search his house. After accused
gave his permission, the police
officers conducted a search of the
house.
 The search yielded the following items: (a)
a caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. 703792 with
five magazines of caliber .45 (Exhibits B and
H) found at the master's bedroom; (b) five
magazines of 5.56 M-16 rifle and two radios
(Exhibits C to C-4) found in the room of
accused's daughter; and (c) a caliber .22
revolver with Serial No. 48673 (Exhibit F)
containing 8 pieces of live ammunition (Exhibit
M) found in the kitchen of the house.
 When asked about his license to
possess the firearms, the accused
failed to produce any. This
prompted the police officers to
seize the subject firearms.
 For his defense, accused contends
that he had a license for the caliber
.45 pistol recovered in his bedroom
and that the other items seized
during the search including the
caliber .22 revolver, were merely
planted by the police officers.
 Accused likewise assails the manner in
which the search was carried out, claiming
that the police officers just barged into his
house without asking permission.
Furthermore, he claimed that the barangay
officials arrived only after the police already
had finished the search. However, after trial
the trial court rendered a judgment of
conviction which decision was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.
 RULING
The Supreme Court
REVERSED the decision of the
Court of Appeals and
ACQUITTED petitioner Vicente
del Rosario y Nicolas of the
charge of violation of P. D. No.
1866.
 In this case, the findings of the lower courts
directly contradict the evidence. Hence, the COURT
reviewed the evidence. The trial court held that the
copy of the license presented was blurred, and that
in any event, the court could rely on the
certification dated May 10, 1996, of P/Sr. Inspector
Edwin C. Roque, Chief, Records Branch, Firearms
and Explosives Division, Philippine National Police
stating that Vicente "Vic" del Rosario of
Barangay Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan is not a
licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and
caliber.
 As against this, accused submitted
that he was not the person referred
to in the said certification because he
is Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas from
Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray,
Bulacan.
 The Court takes judicial notice of the
existence of both barangay Tigbe and
barangay Bigte, in Norzagaray, Bulacan. In fact,
the trial court erred grievously in not taking
judicial notice of the barangays within its
territorial jurisdiction, believing the
prosecution's submission that there was only
Barangay Tigbe, and that Barangay Bigte in
the certification was a typographical error.
 Accused presented to the head of the
raiding team, Police Senior Inspector Jerito A.
Adique, Chief, Operations Branch, PNP
Criminal Investigation Command, a valid
firearm license. The court is duty bound to
examine the evidence assiduously to
determine the guilt or innocence of the
accused. It is true that the court may rely on
the certification of the Chief, Firearms and
Explosives Division, PNP on the absence of a
firearm license.
 However, such certification referred to
another individual and thus, cannot prevail
over a valid firearm license duly issued to
accused. In this case, accused presented the
printed computerized copy of License No. RCL
1614021915 issued to him on July 13, 1993,
expiring in January 1995, by the Chief,
Firearms and Explosives Division, PNP under
the signature of Reynaldo V. Velasco, Sr.
Supt. (GSC) PNP, Chief, FEO.
Section 2. Judicial notice, when
discretionary. — A court may take judicial
notice of matters which are of public
knowledge, or are capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought
to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions. (2)
 This section authorizes a court to
take judicial notice of certain matters
in its discretion. The matters fall into
three groups: 1. Those which are of
public knowledge; 2. Those which are
capable of unquestionable
demonstration; and 3. Matters ought
to be known to judges because of
their judicial functions.
 II. First Group: Matters of Public
Knowledge.
A. These are matters the truth or existence of which are
accepted by the public without qualification,
condition or contention.

B. Requirements:
1. Notoriety of the Facts in that the facts are well and
publicly known. The existence should not be known
only to a certain portion of the community.
2. The matter must be well and authoritatively settled
and not doubtful or uncertain.
3. The matter must be within the limits of the
territorial jurisdiction of the court.
 EXAMPLES
1. The existence and location of hospitals, public
buildings, plazas and markets, schools and
universities, main thoroughfares, parks, rivers and
lakes;

2. Facts of local history and contemporary developments

including political matters. For example: the creation
of the city or town, previous and present political
leaders or officials; the increase in population; traffic
congestion in main streets. The existence and location
of the PMA in Baguio City.
III. Second Group: Matters Capable of
Unquestionable Demonstration

A. These are matters which, even

if not notorious, can be
immediately shown to exist or be
true so as to justify dispensing
with actual proof.
 EXAMPLES
1. That poison kills or results to serious injury;
2. That boiling water scalds;
3. Striking the body with a sharp instruments
results to rupturing the skin and to bleeding;
4. Shooting on the head kills;
5. Hunger results to a weakened physical
condition; and
6. Vehicles running at top speed do not
immediately stop even when the brakes are
applied and will leave skid marks on the road.
 IV. Third Group: Matters Ought To Be Known to
Judges because of their Judicial Functions

A. These are matters which pertain to the office of the

Judge or known to them based on their experience as
judges

EXAMPLES:

1. The behavior of people to being witnesses such as their

reluctance to be involved in cases, thus, requiring the
issuance of subpoena to them; the varied reaction of
people to similar events
2. Procedures in the reduction of bail bonds
 JURISPRUDENCE

S/SGT. ELMER VERGARA V. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 128720, JANUARY 23, 2002
JUSTICE QUISUMBING
 FACTS OF THE CASE
An information was filed before the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig City charging S/Sgt. Elmer
Vergara, PC, C1C Nicasio Custodio y Abrera, PC and
Leonido Losanes y Vasquez of Robbery in Band.
Allegedly, conspiring and confederating with John
Doe, they stole from Catherine F. Manalo the payroll
money amounting to P89,000.00 belonging to J & E
Manalo Construction Company, Inc. and a gold
necklace with two (2) pendants, 18K valued
at P17,000 belonging to Manalo.
 Although all the suspects were brought
into police custody, petitioner’s co-accused
managed to extricate themselves from police
control and remain at large. Only petitioner
(Vergara) was left to face the charges wherein
he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution relied
on the positive identification made by
private complainant who testified in court
while Vergara claimed an alibi and denied his
participation in the offense.
 Claiming innocence, he presented
evidence showing that he was at Pacita
Complex at San Pedro, Laguna at the time
of the commission of the offense and
that being a member of the narcotic
operatives he was engaged in a
surveillance of a suspected drug pusher
at that particular time. This statement
was corroborated by no less than the
team leader Captain, who was definite in
declaring that S/Sgt. Elmer Vergara was
physically present inside the Pizza Hut
restaurant at Pacita Complex, San Pedro
Laguna at the alleged commission of the
offense.
 Vergara also argues that the prosecution failed
to contradict his alibi. He submits that the
prosecution failed to prove that he had a car
available to him, or that he drove one from San
Pedro, Laguna to Pasig, Metro Manila. He further
insists that the trial court’s finding that the place
where the crime was committed is less than an
hour’s drive by car and can easily be reached by
one who, like petitioner, had a car available to him,
is erroneous and unsupported by the evidence on
record.
 The trial court chose to believe the
prosecution and disregarded petitioner’s
alibi. It convicted Vergara not of robbery in
band as charged in the information, but of
robbery as defined and penalized under
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. This
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
 RULING
For alibi to prosper, it would not be
enough for the accused to prove that he
was elsewhere when the crime was
committed. He must further
demonstrate that it would have been
physically impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission.
 It is essential that credible and tangible
proof of physical impossibility for the accused
to be at the scene of the crime be presented
to establish an acceptable alibi. Petitioner
failed to meet this test. While petitioner
could have been working as intelligence agent
in San Pedro, Laguna from October 19 –21,
1990, contrary to his claim, it was not
physically impossible for him to have been in
Pasig City, Metro Manila on the day of the
commission of the crime.
 Judicial notice could be taken of the travel
time by car from San Pedro, Laguna to Pasig
City, Metro Manila, because it is capable of
unquestionable demonstration, and
nowadays is already of public knowledge,
especially to commuters. We find no error in
the trial court’s finding that it was not
impossible for petitioner to be at the scene of
the crime, despite his alibi that he was
engaged in intelligence work in San Pablo
Laguna that same afternoon of October 19,
1990.
 In the case of alibi, it is elementary
that the requirements of time and place
be strictly complied with by the defense,
meaning that the accused must not only
show that he was somewhere else but
that it was also physically impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the
crime at the time it was committed.
 In the light of private complainant’s
positive identification of petitioner as the
perpetrator of the crime, the latter’s defense
of bare denial and alibi must necessarily fail,
as her positive testimony overrides his
negative testimony. Alibi is a weak defense
that becomes even weaker in the face of
positive identification of the accused.
Further, an alibi cannot prevail over the
positive identification of the petitioner by a
credible witness who has no motive to testify
falsely.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V.
ANDRES PEÑAFLORIDA
G.R. NO. 130550,
SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
JUSTICE DAVIDE, JR.
 FACTS OF THE CASE
Accused-appellant Andres Peñaflorida
appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 19, Malolos, Bulacan, in
Criminal Case No. 2683-M-94, dated 12 May
1997, finding him guilty of Murder and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and indemnify to the
heirs of the victim, SPO3 Eusebio Natividad, in
the amount of P50,000.
 On trial, the prosecution presented its
eyewitness, Rodolfo de la Cruz (hereafter
RODOLFO). He testified that at around 4:00 p.m. on
5 October 1994, he was resting on the terrace of his
house at Pinaod, San Ildefonso, Bulacan, when he
noticed an oncoming owner-type jeep. On board
were the driver SPO3 Eusebio Natividad,
RODOLFO's former CAFGU trainer and an unknown
companion passenger. Suddenly, three men, each
armed with a short pistol, blocked and stopped the
jeep. One of the three armed men shouted:
"Natividad katapusan mo na ito," (Natividad, this is
your end).
 After which, the three gunmen
simultaneously fired upon Natividad. When
the assault ceased, one of the gunmen took
Natividad's wallet and gun. The attackers then
fled on board a vehicle.

RODOLFO claimed that the killing took

place in a small market (talipapa) about five
arms length from his terrace, hence, he was
able to see clearly the faces of Natividad's
assailants.
 RODOLFO also recounted that seven days
after the shooting incident or on 12 October
1994, he voluntarily proceeded to the 175th
PC Detachment upon the invitation of the
police authorities who were conducting the
investigation on the matter. There, the police
officers presented a man whom RODOLFO
instantly recognized as one of NATIVIDAD's
assailants, in particular, the one who took
Natividad's gun and wallet.
 The police then informed RODOLFO that the
man's name was ANDRES Peñaflorida. Armed with
the name to match one of the faces he
remembered as one of Natividad's attackers,
RODOLFO voluntarily and promptly executed on
that same day, a sworn statement narrating the
events pertaining to the attack. In open court,
RODOLFO once again specifically pointed to
ANDRES as one of the assailants of Natividad who
seized the latter's gun and wallet.
 The defense thereafter, presented its
witnesses ANDRES and his brother, Roberto
Peñaflorida. ANDRES interposed alibi. He claimed
that at around 4:30 p.m., on 5 October 1994, he
was in the house of his brother, Roberto in
Marulas, Bulacan where he assisted the latter in
the repair of the chassis of some automobiles. He
did not leave Marulas that day hence, he could
not be physically present in some other place,
much less in San Ildefonso. He left Marulas only
on 11 October 1994 upon his cousin's request to
harvest palay at Sapang Palay. He was arrested on
said date.
 ANDRES further denied ever knowing
both Natividad and RODOLFO. Natividad
certainly was not his enemy hence,
ANDRES could not think of any reason
why RODOLFO implicated him in the
killing of Natividad.
 Roberto Peñaflorida corroborated the
alibi of ANDRES. He maintained that he was
working with ANDRES the whole day of 5
October 1994 in the repair of a Motherland
bus. Roberto further declared that ANDRES
had been living with him since December,
1993. There had been no occasion for
ANDRES to leave Marulas except on 11
October 1994 when he was invited by a
friend to go to San Ildefonso. A week later,
Roberto learned that ANDRES had been
arrested.
 The trial court considered said evidence
of the defense as unworthy of belief. It
instead gave full faith and credit to the
evidence of the prosecution, particularly the
testimony of the lone prosecution witness
RODOLFO. It is convinced that RODOLFO
positively identified ANDRES as one of the
culprits who, using a short firearm, riddled
the different parts of Natividad's body with
bullets that led to his untimely demise.
 It assessed the testimony of RODOLFO as
"clear, unequivocal, unmistakable and
overwhelming leaving no room for doubt as to
its veracity and conclusiveness" The trial court
then reiterated in its decision, the
jurisprudential doctrine that RODOLFO's
positive identification prevails over the
uncorroborated and self-serving denial and
alibi interposed by the defense.
 The accused appealed before the CA and
contends that the trial court erred in convicting him
since he was not positively identified by RODOLFO.
There was no positive identification because (a)
RODOLFO could not have remembered the physical
features of the three (3) gunmen, particularly
ANDRES, given the short time that he (RODOLFO)
had seen them and that previous to the incident he
did not know any one of them; (b) RODOLFO did
not identify ANDRES from a police line-up but was
introduced to him (RODOLFO) alone; and (c)
RODOLFO belatedly executed the sworn statement,
that is seven days after the shooting incident.
 With this, ANDRES insinuates that the
police authorities "coached" RODOLFO in the
identification for he executed the sworn
statement, propitiously on 12 October 1994, a
day after ANDRES arrest. ANDRES additionally
points out that he was arrested not by virtue
of a warrant of arrest but upon mere
invitation by a certain police officer Palarca
who brought him immediately to the 175th PC
Detachment.
 RULING
Well settled is the rule that the ascertainment
of the credibility of witnesses is best left to the
determination of the trial court. This is so
because the trial court is in a distinct
advantageous position to examine the witnesses'
deportment and manner of testifying. On appeal,
its evaluation or assessment of the testimonies of
witnesses is accorded great respect and finality in
the absence of any indication that it overlooked
certain facts or circumstances of weight and
influence which, if considered, would alter the
results of the case.
 In this case, no cogent reasons were
presented to disturb the factual findings of
the trial court particularly on the
assessment of the credibility of the
prosecution eyewitness. The trial court
ascertained that RODOLFO "categorically,
unequivocably and repeatedly pointed to"
ANDRES as one of the three armed men
who ambushed and gunned down
Natividad. It declared that RODOLFO
positively identified ANDRES. The SC agrees.
 RODOLFO had all the opportunity to
observe the horrible occurrence as he was
only about five arms length from the scene of
the crime. He had a good view of the
assailants' physical and facial features. True,
he had seen their faces for only a short span
of time but that was all RODOLFO needed in
order to remember their faces. Even if he did
not know any one of the assailants previous to
the incident, such a fact would not deter
RODOLFO from remembering them.
 In fact, RODOLFO was so certain of the
attackers' faces that he easily and quickly
recognized ANDRES as one of them when he saw
the latter at the 175th PC Detachment. It is
therefore unnecessary for RODOLFO to have
identified ANDRES from the police line-up.
Besides, there is no law requiring a police line-up
as an essential requisite for proper
identification. Further, no proof was adduced
indicating that RODOLFO was coached by the
police officers or improperly motivated in
identifying ANDRES as one of Natividad's slayers.
 As to the alleged delay in the execution of
RODOLFO's sworn statement, it does not and
will not impair his credibility as witness. This
Court takes judicial notice of the actuality
that witnesses in this country are usually
reluctant to volunteer information about a
criminal case or are unwilling to be involved
in or dragged into criminal investigations.
 Indeed, RODOLFO exhibited a natural
human reaction. Although there was
delay in the execution of his sworn
statement, what matters is RODOLFO
overcame his initial reluctance and fear
to be involved by voluntarily participating
in the police investigation and then
openly testifying in court.
 In sum, RODOLFO's positive identification of
ANDRES as one of the authors of the crime prevails
over his defense of alibi. Settled is the rule that
alibi is the weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to
contrive and difficult to prove. For such a defense
to prosper, it is not enough for ANDRES to prove
that he was somewhere else when the crime
occurred, i.e., at Marulas, Bulacan but he must also
demonstrate that it was physically impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the crime at San
Ildefonso, Bulacan, at the time of its commission.
 PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
A. The matter need not be personally
known to the judge in order to be
taken judicial notice of, as in fact the
judge maybe personally ignorant
thereof.
B. Personal knowledge by the
Judge of a fact is not necessarily
knowledge by the Court as to be
the basis of a judicial notice.
C. As to whether a party can introduce
contrary proof: (1). If the matter is one
subject of mandatory judicial notice,
contrary proof is not allowed (2). If the
matter is one which the court is allowed
to take notice in its discretion, the
prohibition applies to civil cases only,
but in criminal cases, the accused may
still introduce contrary proof as part of
his right to defend himself.
Judicial Notice of Certain Specific Matters

A. As To Foreign Laws.

1. As a general rule, Philippine Courts cannot take

judicial notice of the existence and provisions/contents
of a foreign law, which matters must be alleged and
proven as a fact. If the existence and
provisions/contents were not properly pleaded and
proven, the Principle of Processual Presumption
applies i.e. the foreign law will be presumed to be the
same as Philippine Laws and it will be Philippine Laws
which will be applied to the case.
2. Exceptions or when Court may take judicial
notice of a foreign law
a. When there is no controversy among the
parties as to the existence and provision of
the foreign law;
b. When the foreign law has been previously
ruled upon the court as to have acquired
actual knowledge of it. For example:
Knowledge of the Texan law on succession
based on the Christiansen cases; notice of the
existence of the Nevada Divorce Law;
c. The foreign law has been previously
applied in the Philippines e.g. the
Spanish Codigo Penal;
d. The foreign law is the source of the
Philippine Law e.g. the California Law on
Insurance, the Spanish Civil Code; and
e. When the foreign law is a treaty in which
the Philippines is a signatory to it being
part of the Public International Law.
B. Domestic Laws, Administrative Rules and
Regulations

1. As to laws, rules and regulations of

national applications, their passage and
effectivity and provisions are
governmental matters which must be
noticed mandatorily;
2. As to laws of local application:

a. For lower Courts: they may take notice of

ordinances, resolutions and executive or
administrative orders enforced within the
town nor city where they sit
b. For the RTCs: they may do so only when a
case has been appealed to them and the
lower court has taken notice thereof
c. For appellate courts: on appeal and all
those enforced within any town or city in the
Philippines
 C. Decisions of Courts
1. Decisions of appellate courts must be taken
notice of mandatorily by trial courts;
2. As to the records of cases pending or decided
by other courts: these may not be taken
judicial notice of ;
3. As to Records of Other Cases Pending Before
the Same Court
a)As a general rule, courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of
the contents of records of other
cases tried or pending in the same
court, even when these cases were
heard or actually pending before the
same judge.
b). However, this rule admits of exceptions, (i). as
when reference to such records is sufficiently
made without objection from the opposing
parties, reference is by name and number or in
some other manner by which it is sufficiently
designated or (ii) when the original record of the
former case or any part of it, is actually
withdrawn from the archives by the court’s
direction, at the request or with the consent of
the parties, and admitted as part of the records
of the case then pending (Calamba Steel Center
Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. April
28, 2005)
D. Commercial Usages and Practices

Those pertaining to business,

occupation or profession. Notice
may be taken only of those which are
well known and established.
 EXAMPLES:
1. The closure of banks on Saturdays and Sundays
and of the banking hours being until 3:00 P.M.;
2. Practice of considering checks as stale if not
presented within 6 months;
3. The establishment of ATM machines to facilitate
the opening of accounts and withdrawal of
money;
4. The practice of requiring tickets for persons to
enter theaters and movie houses or to ride in
public transports;
5. The holding of graduation exercises by schools and
universities every end of the semester;
6. The public auction of unredeemed articles by pawn
shops;
7. Courts take judicial notice that before a bank grants
a loan secured by a land, it first undertakes a careful
examination of the title, as well as a physical and on-
the-spot investigation of the land offered as security.
Hence it cannot claim to be a mortgagee in good faith
as against the actual possessor of the land;
(Erasustada vs. C.A., 495 SCRA 319)
8. That no official receipts are issued by sidewalk or
market vendors
E. CUSTOMS, HABITS AND PRACTICES
OF PEOPLE
Notice may be taken only of those
which are generally known and
established and uniformly acted
upon. Particular customs, and those
peculiar only to certain people must
be established as a fact.
 EXAMPLES:
1. Variations in handwriting
2. The instinct of self preservation
3. Sleeping habits of people in the barrios
4. Rituals digging and cleansing of bones of
buried loved ones among certain tribes and
other tribal practices, must be proved as a fact
5. What about the natural shyness of the Filipina
woman?
 F. AS TO RELIGIOUS MATTERS

Courts may take notice of the

general tenets or beliefs of a
particular group including their
organizational structures, but not
as to specific practices, tenets
and dogmas.
 EXAMPLES:
1.Thus notice maybe taken of the belief of Catholics who
considers Jesus as God, whereas the INC do not but as
a man, and the Muslims regard Him merely as a
prophet lesser in stature to Mohammed
2. That the Pope is the titular head of the Catholic Church
while the Dalai Llama is head of the Tibetan Monks;
Mecca is the Holiest City of the Muslims; the Muslim
belief in Ramadan; the belief in reincarnation among
the Hindus and Buddhists while the Christians believe
in resurrection after death; whereas Christians believe
in heaven the Buddhist have their Nirvana. Notice is
proper of the Christian Bible and the Muslim Koran as
their respective Holy Books.