Case Digest_The People of the Philippines v Jailon Kulais GR NO.

100901, July 16, 1998 Facts: On August 22, 1990, five Informations for kidnapping for ransom and three informations for kidnapping were filed before the RTC of Zamboanga City against Carlos Falcasantos, Jailon Kulais, Jumatiya Amlani, Norma Sahiddan de Kulais, Jalina Hassan de Kamming, Salvador Mamaril, Hadjirul Plasin, Jaimuddin Hassan, Imam Taruk Alah, Freddie Manuel and several John and Jane Does. The informations for kidnapping for ransom, which set forth identical allegations save for the names of the victims. The three informations for kidnapping, also under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, likewise alleged identical facts and circumstances, except the names of the victims. Of the twelve accused, only nine were apprehended. The trial court found Appellant Kulais guilty of five counts of kidnapping for ransom and one count of kidnapping a woman and public officer, for which offenses it imposed upon him six terms of life imprisonment. It also found him guilty of two counts of slight illegal detention for the kidnapping of Monico Saavedra and Calixto Francisco. On May 7, 1991, Jailon Kulais, Jumatiya Amlani de Falcasantos, Norma Sahiddan de Kulais and Jaliha Hussin filed their Joint Notice of Appeal. In a letter dated February 6, 1997, the same appellants, except Jailon Kulais, withdrew their appeal because of their application for amnesty. In a Resolution dated March 19, 1997, it granted the motion. Hence, only the appeal of Kulais remains for the consideration of this Court. Issue: Whether or not the trial court is faulted with the following errors: a. In taking judicial notice of a material testimony given in another case by Lt. Melquiades Feliciano b. On the assumption that Lt. Felicianos testimony could be validly taken judicial notice of Held: Wherefore, the conviction of appellant Kulais as principal in five counts of kidnapping for ransom and in three counts of kidnapping is affirmed, but the penalty imposed is modified. 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. The elements of kidnapping for ransom, as embodied in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, having been sufficiently proven, and the appellant, a private individual, having been clearly identified by the kidnap victims, this Court thus affirms the trial courts finding of appellants guilt on five counts of kidnapping for ransom.

Laureano v Court of Appeals 324 SCRA 414 Facts: Sometime in 1978 plaintiff Laureano was employed on a contract basis for two years as an expatriate B-707 captain by defendant company Singapore Airlines. His first term was then extended for another 2 years. However, defendant was hit by a recession and initiated a cost cutting measure. Plaintiff was advised to take advance leave. Realizing that the recession would not be for a short time, Singapore Airlines decided to terminate its excess personnel including plaintiff. Subsequently, Laureano instituted a case and a claim for damages due to illegal termination of contract of services before the court a quo. Singapore Airlines filed a motion to dismiss alleging inter alia that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over the case. The defendant postulated that Singapore should apply. Issue: Whether or not Philippine laws should be applied and Philippine courts should have jurisdiction over the instant case Held: The Supreme Court concurred in the assumption of jurisdiction by the RTC which rightly ruled on the application of Philippine laws. The SC further stated that neither can the court determine whether the termination of Laureano is legal and under Singapore laws because of the Airlines failure to show which p roves the applicability of the foreign law. It is a well settled rule that the party who claims the applicability of a foreign law has the burden of proof and where said party has failed to discharge the burden, Philippine laws apply. The defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, Philippine law should be applied.

Habagat Grill through Louie Biraogo v DMC-URBAN Property Developer Inc GR No. 155110, March 31, 2005 Facts: Consunji Inc. acquired and became the owner of a residential lot situated in Matina Davao City. On June 13, 1981, David Consunji Inc transferred said lot to its sister company, the DMC Urban Property Developers, Inc (DMC) in whose favor TCT No. T-279042 was issued. Alleging that Louie Biraogo forcibly entered said lot and built the Habagat Grill in December 1993, DMC filed on March 28, 1994 a Complaint for Forcible Entry against Habagat Grill and/or Louie Biraogo. The Complaint alleged that as owner DMC possessed the lot in question from June 11, 1981 until December 1, 1993, that on that day, December 1, 1993, Louie Biraogo, by means of strategy and stealth, unlawfully entered into the lot in question and constructed the Habagat Grill thereon, thus illegally depriving DMC of the possession of said lot since then up to the present, that the reasonable rental value of said lot is P10,000 a month. Louie Biraogo in his Answer denied illegally entering the lot in question. After necessary proceedings, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities rendered a decision on August 6, 1998 dismissing the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. DMC appealed from said decision. On February 16, 1999, said court

rendered judgment affirming the appealed decision. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed but was denied in the courts Order. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not the MTC has jurisdiction over the case, and whether or not respondent alleged a sufficient cause of action in its complaint Held: the petition is denied and the challenged decision and resolution are affirmed. We agree with respondent 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 tribunals general knowledge or from a slight search on its part. Indeed, municipal courts may take judicial notice of the municipal ordinances in force in the municipality in which they sit. Such notice, however, is limited to what the law is and what it states. As can be gleaned from its discussion, 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, which was from the shoreline to the road towards the shoreline. On the basis of these premises, the trial court resolved that the lot on which petitioners restaurant was located should necessarily be inside Times Beach, which was owned by the City of Davao. Hence, it was the Citynot respondentthat had a cause of action against petitioner. To arrive at this conclusion, the MTC made its own estimate of the location of the metes and bounds of the property mentioned by the law. 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 the 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. The appellate court aptly relied on the Report submitted by the survey team that had been constituted by the trial court, precisely for the purpose of determining the location of Habagat Grill in relation to respondents lot.