RULE 129

Section 1, 2& 3- Judicial Notice

9. PEOPLE Vs KULAIS 292 SCRA 551

FACTS:

Appellants were charge with five (5) counts of kidnapping for ransom and three (3) counts
of kidnapping before the RTC. Trial court convicted the seven accused positively identified
by the victims. Appellant Kulais argues that he was denied due process when the trial court
took judicial notice of the testimony given in another case by one Lt. Melquiades Feliciano,
who was the team leader of the government troops that captured him and his purported
cohorts. Because he was allegedly deprived of his right to cross- examine a material witness
in the person of Lieutenant Feliciano, he contends that the latter’s testimony should not be
used against him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a court may take judicial notice of the testimony of one witness in a case
pending before it and use the same to another case also pending with it.

HELD:

No. 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-
examine the witnesses against him.
Having said that, we note, however, that even if the court a quo did take judicial notice of
the testimony of
Lieutenant Feliciano, it did not use such testimony in deciding the cases against the
appellant. Hence, Appellant Kulais was not denied due process. His conviction was based
mainly on the positive identification made by some of the kidnap victims. These witnesses
were subjected to meticulous cross- examinations conducted by appellant’s counsel.