FACTS: Petitioner Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG),

represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for forfeiture before the
Sandiganbayan. The petitioner alleged that the respondents illegally manipulated
the purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable and Wireless Limited in Eastern
Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), which shareholdings respondents held for themselves .
During the pendency of PCGG’s petition, the PCGG filed with a petition with the Supreme Court. In
the proceedings to resolve the Urgent Petition, the testimony of Mr. Maurice V. Bane was taken on
the respondents by way of deposition upon oral examination.

In another case with the same parties, petitioner wishes to adopt in their testimonies and the
documentary exhibits presented and identified by them, since their testimonies and the said
documentary exhibits are very relevant to prove the case. The Court partly denied insofar as the
petitioner prays therein to adopt the testimonies on oral deposition of Maurice V. Bane and Rolando
Gapud as part of its evidence for the reason that said deponents according to the petitioner are not
available for cross-examination in this Court by the respondents.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in refusing to admit the deposition of Bane, while it
was already admitted as evidence in a similar case.

RULING: No.

DOCTRINE: The prior use of the deposition under Section 4(c), Rule 23 cannot be taken as compliance
with Section 47, Rule 130 which considers the same deposition as hearsay, unless the requisites for its
admission under this rule are observed.

General Rule: Requisites for the admission of a testimony or deposition given at a former case or
proceeding (Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court):

1. The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or otherwise unable to testify;

2. The testimony was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative;
3. Involving the same parties;
4. Relating to the same matter; and
5. The adverse party having had the opportunity to cross-examine him.

------------

FINAL

EXCEPTION OF admissibility of testimonies in other cases

What are the exceptions to the conclusiveness of judicial admissions?

1. palpable mistake or
2. there was no admission made.

What is palpable mistake?

It is an obvious or plainly visible mistake.
E.g. typo error, statement that contract is notarized but not really so

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 that both cases may have been tried or are actually
pending before the same judge.

As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original
record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when,
1. with the knowledge of adverse part reference is made to it for that purposeby name and number or
in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated;
2. and absent an objection from the adverse party, , or when the original record of the former case or
any part of it,
3. is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court's direction,
4. request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then
pending.

Courts must also take judicial notice of the records of another case or cases, where sufficient basis
exists in the records of the case before it, warranting the dismissal of the latter case.

FACTS:

Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), filed a petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan. The PCGG alleged that the
respondents illegally manipulated
the purchase of the major shareholdings of Cable and Wireless Limited in Eastern
Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), which shareholdings respondents held for themselves .
During the pendency of PCGG’s petition, the PCGG filed with a petition with the Court. In the
proceedings to resolve the Urgent Petition, the testimony of Mr. Maurice V. Bane was taken on the
respondents by way of deposition upon oral examination.

In another case with the same parties, PCGG wishes to adopt in their testimonies and the
documentary exhibits presented and identified by them, since their testimonies and the said
documentary exhibits are very relevant to prove the case. The Court partly denied insofar as the
petitioner prays therein to adopt the testimonies on oral deposition of Maurice V. Bane and Rolando
Gapud as part of its evidence for the reason that said deponents according to the petitioner are not
available for cross-examination in this Court by the respondents.

ISSUE: Whether or not the deposition of Bane in another case may be admitted.

EXCEPTION OF admissibility of testimonies in other cases

RULING: No. The Supreme Court ruled that in adjudicating a case on trial, generally, 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 that both cases may have
been tried or are actually pending before the same judge.This rule though admits of exceptions.

As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original
record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when,
5. with the knowledge of adverse part reference is made to it for that purposeby name and number or
in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated;
6. and absent an objection from the adverse party, , or when the original record of the former case or
any part of it,
7. is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court's direction,
8. request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then
pending.

Courts must also take judicial notice of the records of another case or cases, where sufficient basis
exists in the records of the case before it, warranting the dismissal of the latter case.
First, the supporting cases the petitioner cited are inapplicable either because these cases involve
only a single proceeding or an exception to the rule, which proscribes the courts from taking judicial
notice of the contents of the records of other cases.

Second, the petitioner’s proposition is obviously obnoxious to a system of orderly procedure. The
petitioner itself admits that the present case has generated a lot of cases, which, in all likelihood,
involve issues of varying complexity. If we follow the logic of the petitioner’s argument, we would be
espousing judicial confusion by indiscriminately allowing the admission of evidence in one case, which
was presumably found competent and relevant in another case, simply based on the supposed
lineage of the cases. It is the duty of the petitioner, as a party-litigant, to properly lay before the court
the evidence it relies upon in support of the relief it seeks, instead of imposing that same duty on the
court. We invite the petitioner’s attention to our prefatory pronouncement in Lopez v.
Sandiganbayan:

Down the oft-trodden path in our judicial system, by common sense, tradition and the law, the Judge
in trying a case sees only with judicial eyes as he ought to know nothing about the facts of the case,
except those which have been adduced judicially in evidence. Thus, when the case is up for trial, the
judicial head is empty as to facts involved and it is incumbent upon the litigants to the action to
establish by evidence the facts upon which they rely. (emphasis ours)

The Supreme Court, therefore refuse, in the strongest terms, to entertain the petitioner’s argument
that we should take judicial notice of the Bane deposition.

Baharan

dmissibility of extrajudicial confession/plea of guilty

CASE: People vs. Baharan, 639 SCRA

DOCTRINE: An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence against the

confessant but not against his co-accused as they are deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine him. A judicial confession is admissible against
the declarant’s co-accused since the latter are afforded the opportunity to
cross-examine the former.

if the declarant repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial confession

becomes a judicial admission, making the testimony admissible as to both
conspirators. There is a distinction between extrajudicial and judicial
confessions. An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence against the
confessant but not against his co-accused as they are deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine him. A judicial confession is admissible against
the declarant’s co-accused since the latter are afforded the opportunity to
cross-examine the former.

FACTS: On February 14, 2005, Trinidad and Baharan were trained by Abu
Sayyaf group and bombed a bus. After the bombing, Trinidad gave ABS-CBN
News Network an exclusive interview some time after the incident, where he
confessed his participation in the Valentines Day bombing incident. In another
exclusive interview on the network, accused Baharan likewise admitted his
role in the bombing incident. Only Baharan, Trinidad, Asali, and Rohmat were
arrested, while the other accused remain at-large. They were charged with
multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. On arraignment they pleaded
guilty on the charge of
multiple murder. On multiple frustrated murder, Trinidad and Baharan pleaded
not guilty.

The trial court asked whether accused Baharan and Trinidad were amenable
to changing their not guilty pleas to the charge of multiple frustrated murder,
considering that they pled guilty to the heavier charge of multiple murder,
creating an apparent inconsistency in their pleas. The two accused
acknowledged the inconsistencies and manifested their readiness for re-
arraignment. After the Information was read to them, Baharan and Trinidad
pled guilty to the charge of multiple frustrated murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not the admission of Asali may be considered as a judicial

admission.

RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that while it is true that under the
Rules, statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are
admissible only when made during the existence of the conspiracy.

However, as the Court ruled in People v. Buntag, if the declarant repeats the
statement in court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission,
making the testimony admissible as to both conspirators. There is a
distinction between extrajudicial and judicial confessions. An extrajudicial
confession may be given in evidence against the confessant but not against
his co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him.
A judicial confession is admissible against the declarant’s co-accused since
the latter are afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the

former. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court applies only to extrajudicial
acts or admissions and not to testimony at trial where the party adversely
affected has the opportunity to cross- examine the declarant. Mercene’s
admission implicating his co-accused was given on the witness stand. It is
admissible in evidence against appellant Palijon. Moreover, where several
accused are tried together for the same offense, the testimony of a co-
accused implicating his co-accused is competent evidence against the latter.