State Prosecutors vs. Manuel T. Muro [ DISSENTING OPINION, BELLOSILLO, J. ]

STATE PROSECUTORS, complainants, vs. JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Manila, respondent

A.M. No. RTJ-92-876 | 1994-09-19

Judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety; mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge of the court and he cannot make it the basis of his action
Judicial notice; what constitutes (or meaning of) matters of common knowledge
Double jeopardy will not bar the refiling of the criminal case if the court acted without jurisdiction in granting acquittal or dismissal of the case and prosecution was effectively denied due process

Separate Opinions

BELLOSILLO, J., dissenting:

In other jurisdictions, it is generally accepted that judges are not accountable by way of either civil suit or discipline for their official acts, even if clearly erroneous. Thus, open disregard of statutes, rules, and cases has been held to be protected official activity. Although a decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge's integrity or physiological condition, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself is insufficient to establish a case against the judge. The rule is consistent with the concept of judicial independence. An honest judge, if he were denied...