1.

Q:
Whether evidence not presented during administrative investigation is
admissible in the certiorari proceedings?
A:
The findings of the Secretary can not be enervated by new evidence
not laid down before him, for that would be tantamount to holding a new
investigation, and to substitute for the discretion and judgment of the
Secretary the discretion and judgment of the court, to whom the statute had
entrusted the case. It is immaterial that the present action should be
one for prohibition or injunction and not one for certiorari, in either
event the case must be resolved upon the evidence submitted to the
Secretary, since a judicial review of executive decisions does not import a
trial de novo, but only an ascertainment of whether the executive findings are
not in violation of the constitution or of the laws, and are free from fraud or
imposition, and whether they find reasonable support in the evidence. 1 Here,
the proof preponderates in favor of the Secretary's decision.
2. Q:
When should the accused make an objection to the defect or
irregularity attending an arrest or its consequence?
A:
In any event, any objection, defect, or irregularity attending an arrest
or its consequences should be made before an entry of plea in the
arraignment; otherwise, the objection would be deemed waived. 1[19] The
records would show that on 01 October 1991, appellant and the other
accused, Lobaton and Fuentes, entered a plea of not guilty 2[20] without
assailing the validity of his arrest.
3. Q:Whether admissions made by the accused in a counter affidavit during P.I.
are admissible in evidence even if such accused was not assisted by counsel.
A: Whether categorized as a confession or as an admission, it is admissible in
evidence against him.In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing
their untruth or by showing they were made by mistake. The party may also
establish that the response that formed the admission was made in a jocular,
not a serious, manner; or that the admission was made in ignorance of the
true state of facts.
4. Q:
Whether Bill of Rights may be invoked even if there is no government
function
A:
That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be
invoked against acts of private individuals finds xxxx The constitutional
proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a
restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with
the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State
to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is
imposed.
5. Q: Effect of Parafin Test.
A: While it can establish the presence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand, it
does not always indubitably show that said nitrates or nitrites were caused by
the discharge of firearm. The person tested may have handled one or more
of a number of substances which give the same positive reaction for nitrates
or nitrites, such as explosives, fireworks, pharmaceuticals, and leguminous
plants such as peas, beans, and alfalfa. A person who uses tobacco may also
have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances are
present in the products of combustion of tobacco. The presence of nitrates,
1
2

Page 2 of 9
therefore, should be taken only as an indication of a possibility but not of
infallibility that the person tested has fired a gun.
6. Q: How about DNA test?
A: Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact
in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. 34 Applying the
Daubert test to the case at bar, the DNA evidence obtained through PCR
testing and utilizing STR analysis, and which was appreciated by the court a
quo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably based on scientifically valid
principles of human genetics and molecular biology.
7.

Q: Blood Test in Rape

A: The blood test was adduced as evidence only to show that the alleged
father or any one of many others of the same blood type may have
been the father of the child

8. Q: Fingerprints
A: Negative findings do not at all times lead to a valid conclusion for there
may be logical explanations for the absence of identifiable latent prints other
than their not being present at the scene of the crime. Only latent
fingerprints found on smooth surface are useful for purposes of comparison in
a crime laboratory because prints left on rough surfaces result in dotted lines
or broken lines instead of complete and continuous lines.
9. Q: Polygraph Test
A: NO.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
10. Q: Official Acts of the Exec. Department
A: . The act is not purely administrative but quasi-judicial or adjudicatory
since it is dependent upon the ascertainment of facts by the administrative
agency, upon which a decision is to be made and rights and liabilities
determined As such, the July 31, 1989 decision of the Office of the President
is explicitly an official act of and an exercise of quasi-judicial power by the
Executive Department headed by the highest officer of the land. It thus
squarely falls under matters relative to the executive department which
courts are mandatorily tasked to take judicial notice of under Section 1, Rule
129 of the Rules of Court. Judicial notice must be taken of the organization of
the Executive Department, its principal officers, elected or appointed, such as
the President, his powers and duties (Francisco, Evidence [Rules 128-134],
1996 ed., p. 24, citing Canal Zone vs. Mena, 2 Canal Zone 170).
11.Q: Laws on nature
12.A: The court can take judicial notice of the laws of nature, i[12] 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.ii[13]
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
13.Q: Court Issuance
A: 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 the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and
the geographical divisions. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
14. Q: Decision in another Case

Page 3 of 9
A: As a general rule, courts are NOT authorized to take judicial knowledge of
the contents of the record of other cases, in the adjudication of cases
pending before them, even though the trial judge in fact knows or remembers
the contents thereof, or even when said other cases have been heard or are
pending in the same court and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may
have been heard or are really pending before the same judge.
15. Q:
When parties to a case agree on what the foreign law provides, is it an
admission of law or an admission of fact?
A:
Elementary is the rule that foreign laws may not be taken judicial
notice of and have to be proven like any other fact in dispute between the
parties in any proceeding, with the rare exception in instances when the said
laws are already within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when they
are well and generally known or they have been actually ruled upon in other
cases before it and none of the parties concerned do not claim otherwise
16. Q: Distance
A/: 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.iii[11] We find no error
in the trial courts 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
17.Q:Judicial Notice of Foreign laws
A:
No.
18.Q:
Whether courts can take judicial notice of an administrative regulation
that is not yet effective.
A:
No.
19.Q: Whether it is necessary that a certain belief is universal for the court to
take judicial notice of such belief.
20.A: The fact that a belief is not universal, however, is not controlling for it is
very seldom that any belief is accepted by everyone. It is enough that the
matters are familiarly known to the majority of mankind or those persons f
with the particular matter in question (20 Am Jur 49-50; Martin, Rules of Court
37, Second Edition). Furthermore, a matter may be personally known to the
judge and yet tot be a matter of judicial knowledge and vice versa, a matter
may not be actually known to an individual judge, and nevertheless be a
proper subject of judicial cognizance.
21.Q: Whether courts can take judicial notice of occurrence of typhoon in a
particular place.
22.A: Yes.
23.Q: Whether courts can take JN of public events.
24.A: Judicial knowledge may be defined as the cognizance of certain facts which
a judge under rules of legal procedure or otherwise may properly take or act
upon without proof because they are already known to him, or is assumed to
have, by virtue of his office.iv[16] Judicial cognizance is taken only of those
matters that are commonly known. The power of taking judicial notice is to
be exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite
notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be
promptly resolved in the negative.v[17] Matters of judicial notice have three
material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general
knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of jurisdiction of
the court.

Page 4 of 9
The RTC correctly took judicial notice of the nature of the leased property
subject of the case at bench based on its location and the commercial
viability. The above quoted assessment by the RTC of the Baclaran area,
where the subject property is located, is fairly grounded.
25.Q: JN on Public Events.
A: we hold that the evidence proffered by the petitioner is insubstantial.
The accuracy of the news reports referred to by the petitioner cannot be the
subject of judicial notice by this Court especially in light of the denials of the
respondent Ombudsman as to his alleged prejudice and the presumption of
good faith and regularity in the performance of official duty to which he is
entitled. Nor can we adopt the theory of derivative prejudice of
petitioner, i.e., that the prejudice of respondent Ombudsman flows
to his subordinates
26.Q: Whether courts can take judicial notice that business transactions may be
through teleconferencing and whether the same was conducted in the
particular case.
A: Yes. Things of common knowledge, of which courts take judicial matters
coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the 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.
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. As the common knowledge of man ranges far and wide, a wide
variety of particular facts have been judicially noticed as being matters of
common knowledge. But a court 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.[17]In this age of modern
technology, the courts may take judicial notice that business transactions
may be made by individuals through teleconferencing. Teleconferencing is
interactive group communication (three or more people in two or more
locations) through an electronic medium. In general terms, teleconferencing
can bring people together under one roof even though they are separated by
hundreds of miles. This type of group communication may be used in a
number of ways, and have three basic types: (1) video conferencing television-like communication augmented with sound; (2) computer
conferencing - printed communication through keyboard terminals, and (3)
audio-conferencing-verbal communication via the telephone with optional
capacity for telewriting or telecopying.
27. Q: Whether Courts can take judicial notice that persons have killed for no
reason.
A: Yes. Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the
participation of the accused in the crime are definitely shown, particularly
when we consider that it is a matter of judicial knowledge that persons have
killed or committed serious offenses for no reason at all. Motive gains
importance only when the identity of the culprit is doubtful
28. Q: JN re: value on stolen goods.
A: lso not to be overlooked is the fact that the trial court has the power to
take judicial notice, in this case of the value of the stolen goods, because
these are matter of public knowledge or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration.vi[32] The lower court may, as it obviously did, take such
judicial notice motu proprio.vii[33] Judicial cognizance, which is based on
considerations of expediency and convenience, displace evidence since,
being equivalent to proof, it fulfills the object which the evidence is intended
to achieve.viii[34] Surely, matters like the value of the appliances, canned
goods and perfume (especially since the trial court was presided by a lady

Page 5 of 9
judge) are undeniably within public knowledge and easily capable of
unquestionable demonstration.
29. Q: JN re: value of jewelries
30.A: People vs. Antonio Marcos, an ordinary witness cannot establish the value
of jewelry and 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. The value of jewelry is not a matter of public
knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable demonstration and in the
absence of receipts or any other competent evidence besides the self-serving
valuation made by the prosecution, we cannot award the reparation for the
stolen jewelry.3[45]
31. Q: Whether the judge can take judicial notice of the value of a gun subject of
a case for malversation of public ppropert
A: The Sandiganbayan could not take judicial notice of the value of the gun. It must be

duly proved in evidence as a fact. The court can not take judicial notice of a disputed
fact. The court may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or which are
capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicial functions.ix[7] Otherwise, the court must receive evidence of disputed facts with
notice to the parties.x

32. Q: Whether courts are authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of
records of other case.
33.A: GEN. RULE: It is true that as a general rule, courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases, even when such
cases have been tried or are pending in the same court, and notwithstanding
the fact that both cases may have been tried or are actually pending before
the same judge. 35 However, this rule is subject to the exception that:
EXECPTION. . . in the absence of objection and as a matter of convenience to
all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original
record of the case filed in its archives as read into the records of a
case pending before it, when with the knowledge of the opposing
party, reference is made to it, by name and number or in some other
manner by which it is sufficiently designated, . . . 36 (emphasis
supplied.)
34.Q: Whether courts can take JN of the age of the victim.
A: Yes. See dela Banda book
35.Q: When the judge takes judicial notice of the records of another case and
how may he do it.
A: SEC. 3. 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. (emphasis added)

36.Q: Whether the court can take judicial notice of the reasonable monthly rental
of a property.
A: NO.A court cannot take judicial notice of a factual matter in controversy. The court

may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or which are capable of
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial
functions.xi[16] Before taking such judicial notice, the court must allow the parties to be
heard thereon.xii[17] Hence, there can be no judicial notice on the rental value of the
premises in question without supporting evidence.
3

Page 6 of 9

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

37. Q: Are facts alleged in the pleadings considered evidence?

A: As a general rule, facts alleged in a party's pleading are deemed
admissions of that party and are binding upon it, but this is not an absolute
and inflexible rule. An answer is a mere statement of fact which the party
filing it expects to prove, but it is not evidence. As ARIOSTO SANTOS himself,
in open court, had repudiated the defenses he had raised in his ANSWER and
against his own interest, his testimony is deserving of weight and credence.
Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court believed in his credibility and we
find no reason to overturn their factual findings thereon." xiii[20] (Underscoring
supplied.)
38.Q: Whether admissions during trial still require proof.
A:
39. Q: Whether admissions in the answer are considered judicial admission.
A: YES. And well-settled is the rule that an admission, verbal or written, made
by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not
require proof.[10] A judicial admission is an admission made by a party in the
course of the proceedings in the same case, for purposes of the truth of some
alleged fact, which said party cannot thereafter disprove.[11] Indeed, an
admission made in the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making
such admission and are conclusive as to him, and that all proofs submitted by
him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether
objection is interposed by a party or not
40.Q: Whether defendants failure to deny an allegation constitutes judicial
admission.
A: YES. Sec. 4, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require
proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.
A party may make judicial admissions in (a) the pleadings, (b) during the trial,
either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations, or (c) in other
stages of the judicial proceeding.4
41.Q: Whether admissions in the pleadings may be controverted on appeal.
A: Well settled is the rule that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule
45, only questions of law must be raised. 5 As a matter of procedure, the Court
defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts, especially
when, as in the case at bar, such findings are affirmed by the appellate court.
This factual determination, as a matter of long and sound appellate practice,
deserves great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal. It is not the
function of the Court to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence or
premises supportive of the factual holding of the lower courts. 6
42. Q: Whether admissions in amended pleadings are considered judicial
admissions.
A: the original complaint lost its character as a judicial admission, which
would have required no proof, and became merely an extrajudicial admission,
4

Page 7 of 9
the admissibility of which, as evidence, required its formal offer. Contrary to
petitioner's submission, therefore there can be no estoppel by extrajudicial
admission made in the original complaint, for failure to offer it in evidence.
43.Q: Are admissions in dismissed pleadings considered judicial or extra-judicial
admission?
44.A:
45. Q: are admissions in a manifestation considered judicial admissions?
A: No. An admission which operates as a waiver, surrender, or
destruction of the clients cause is beyond the scope of the
attorneys implied authority (People vs. Maceda, 73 Phil. 679 [1942]). In
this case, Atty. Nicolasoras admission that appellant was heavily intoxicated
at the time of the incident and that he had no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed practically frittered away appellants case in favor
of the prosecution. The manifestation cannot thus be held as an admission
by appellant of his guilt.
46. Q: are admissions in a manifestation considered judicial admissions?
A: Section 4. Judicial admissions An admission, verbal or written, made by
a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case does not require
proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made
through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. 5 It is settled
that judicial admissions may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the
parties; (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations
or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pretrial of the case.6[82] Thus, facts pleaded in the petition and answer, as in the
case at bar, are deemed admissions of petitioner and respondents,
respectively, who are not permitted to contradict them or subsequently take
a position contrary to or inconsistent with such admissions.
47.Q: Whether uncontested annex to pleadings are considered admissions.
A: However, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, a copy of this
letter was attached to the petitioner's complaint in I.C. Case No. 3440 as
Annex "M" thereof and made integral part of the complaint. 12 It has attained
the status of a judicial admission and since its due execution and authenticity
was not denied by the other party, the petitioner is bound by it even if it were
not introduced as an independent evidence.
48. Q: Whether uncontested annex to pleadings are considered admissions
49. A:--50.Q: Whether admissions in another case considered judicial admissions.
51.A The elements of judicial admissions are absent in this case. Qua made
conflicting statements in Collection Case No. 8364 and in Foreclosure Case
No. 88-2643, and not in the same case as required in Section 4 of Rule 129.
To constitute judicial admission, the admission must be made in the same
case in which it is offered. If made in another case or in another court, the
fact of such admission must be proved as in the case of any other fact,
although if made in a judicial proceeding it is entitled to greater weight
52.Q: Rule on Qualified Admission.
53.A: ????
54.Q:what is the rule if the accused admits matters that would aggravate the
offense.
55.A:????
56.Q: whether admissions during pre-trial not reduced into writing and not
signed by the accused considered judicial admission.
57.A: ???

5
6

Page 8 of 9

58. Q: Chain of Custody.

A: The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts
regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring
and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the
police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. 2
59.Q: Whether the chain of Custody rule Is absolute
A: In every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the
presentation of the drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in court is
material.7[21] In fact, the existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a
judgment of conviction. It is, therefore, indispensable that the identity of the
prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. Even more than this, what
must also be established is the fact that the substance bought during the
buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The
chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
60.Q: Is the presentation of the original of the dishonored check an
indespinsable.
61.A: the due execution and existence of the check were sufficiently established.
Cenizal testified that he presented the originals of the check, the return slip
and other pertinent documents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City when he executed his complaint-affidavit during the preliminary
investigation. The City Prosecutor found a prima facie case against petitioner
for violation of BP 22 and filed the corresponding information based on the
documents. Although the check and the return slip were among the
documents lost by Cenizal in a fire that occurred near his residence on
September 16, 1992, he was nevertheless able to adequately establish the
due execution, existence and loss of the check and the return slip in an
affidavit of loss as well as in his testimony during the trial of the case
62.Q: IF the party does not deny authencity of the document, does BER apply?
A: The petitioner never even denied their due execution and admitted that
she signed the Deed of Partition.8[50] As for the Deed of Sale, petitioner had,
in effect, admitted its genuineness and due execution when she failed to
specifically deny it in the manner required by the rules. 9[51] The petitioner
merely claimed that said documents do not express the true agreement and
intention of the parties since they were only provisional paper arrangements
made upon the advice of counsel. 10[52] Apparently, the petitioner does not
contest the contents of these deeds but alleges that there was a
contemporaneous agreement that the transfer of Hagonoy Lumber to Chua
Sioc Huan was only temporary.
63.
64..

7
8
9
10

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii