Government of Hong Kong v.

Muñoz
GR No. 207342 || November 7, 2017
BERSAMIN, J.

CASE DOCTRINE (with reference to the topic in the syllabus)

Foreign judgments and laws, if relevant, have to be duly alleged and competently proved like any other disputed fact. The
Court is not at liberty to take judicial notice of the foreign rulin without contravening our own rules on evidence, under
which foreign judgments and laws are not considered as matters of a public or notortious nature that proved themselves.

SUMMARY:
Petitioner Government of Hong Kong filed a motion fo reconsideration of the Court’s ruling, finding that Muñoz could only
be extradited to and tried by HKSAR for conspiracy to defraud, but not for the crime of accepting advantage as agent.
Petitioner argued that in its jurisdiction, the Court of Final Appeal of the HKSAR found that the term “agent” in Sec. 9 of
HKSAR’s Prevention of Bribery Ordinance also covered public servants in another jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the
motion and held that it cannot simply take judicial notice of the ruling that the petitioner belatedly invoked because the
ruling, as well as the applicable national law, has not been proven as fact, which our rules require.

FACTS:
● This is a motion for reconsideration to seek the review and reversal of the decision promulgated by the Court ,
affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision.
○ In that decision, the Court held that Muñoz could only be extradited to and tried by the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) for 7 counts of conspiracy to defraud, but not for the crime of
accepting advantage as an agent.
○ This is because conspiracy to defraud was a public sector offense while accepting an advantage as an
agent dealt with private sector bribery.
○ The dual criminality rule in treaty of extradition1 has not been met.

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS (if applicable):

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

● In the last paragraph of petitioner’s motion, it cited,

for the first time, the ruling supposedly handed
down by HKSAR’s Court of Final Appeal in the
case of B v. The Commissioner of the
Independent Commission against Corruption, to
the effect that the term agent in Section 9 of
HKSAR’s Prevention of Bribery Ordinance also
covered public servants in another jurisdiction.

ISSUE(S), HOLDING, AND RATIO:

RULING RATIO

WON the Court may take judicial notice of the ● It is not at liberty to take judicial notice of the ruling without
ruling in B v. The Commissioner of the contravening our own rules of evidence under which foreign
Independent Commission against judgments and laws are not consiered as matters of a public or

1
An extradition treaty is an international agreement in which the Requested State agrees, at the request of the
Requesting State and under specified conditions, to turn over persons who are within its jurisdiction and who are charged
with crimes against, or are fugitives from, the Requesting State.
B2023(CARINO) - LAW 126, PROF. AVENA
Corruptiuuon? – NO, petitioner did not notorious nature that proved themselves.
seasonably and properly apprise the CA of the ○ In the case of Noveras v. Noveras, Justice Herrera
relevant case law in its jurisdiction. It also did explain that no sovereign is bound to give effect within
not present an official publication of the ruling its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of
or at last a copy of it, attested by the proper another country – the foreign judgment abd its
officer or office having legl custody. authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules
on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable
national law.
○ This finds support in Sec. 24 of Rule 132, which states
that the record of public documents of a sovereign
authorty or tribunal may be proved by: (1) an official
publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer
having legal custody thereof. It should also come with
a certificate that the attesting officer has legal custody
thereof if the same is not kept in the Philippines.
○ Sec. 24 of the same Rule states that whenever a copy
of a document or record is presented as evidence, the
attestation must state that the copy is a correct copy of
the original, or a specific part thereof, under the official
seal of the attesting officer, or under the seal of such
court.
● The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by the
courts of the Philippines with caution, and every reasonable
doubt should be resolved in the negative.

DISPOSITIVE:
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration with finality.

B2023(CARINO) - LAW 126, PROF. AVENA