G.R. No. 121099 February 17, 1999.
FIDEL T. SALAMERA, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, FIRST DIVISION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Fidel T. Salamera was the Mayor of Casiguran, Aurora. In February 1988, he received a .38 Caliber Smith & Wesson Revolver (Serial No. 879886) from Barangay Captain Antonio Benavidez. The gun was owned and licensed to Ponciano Benavidez, who had mortgaged it to Antonio. Petitioner placed the gun in an attache case. About a week later, while traveling to Manila with his security men, their car was stopped at a checkpoint in Quezon City. Police Officer Alfredo B. Villanueva saw the revolver, and on petitioner’s instruction, his security men surrendered it to Villanueva. Upon returning to Casiguran, Ponciano Benavidez claimed the gun from petitioner, who informed him it had been confiscated by the Quezon City Police. Ponciano filed a theft complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor (dismissed on January 20, 1989) and an administrative complaint. Later, on April 6, 1989, he filed a theft complaint with the Ombudsman. On August 21, 1990, Ponciano executed an affidavit of desistance, acknowledging petitioner had paid the value of the gun and withdrawing his complaints. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan dismissed the administrative case. On March 12, 1992, an information for malversation of public property was filed against petitioner in the Sandiganbayan. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated, among other facts, that petitioner confiscated the weapon in his official capacity, demand was made for its production, he failed to produce it, and restitution of its value was made to Ponciano (though the amount was disputed). The prosecution’s sole evidence was a xerox copy of the firearm license (Exhibit “A”). The defense presented evidence including the affidavit of desistance. The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner of malversation, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of full restitution, and imposed an indeterminate sentence, perpetual special disqualification, and a fine of P5,000.00, which it estimated as the “reasonable value” of the gun. Petitioner appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner of malversation of public property, particularly in taking judicial notice of the value of the firearm to set the fine.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court REVERSED the Sandiganbayan’s decision and ACQUITTED petitioner. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed a grievous error by taking judicial notice of the market value of the firearm and estimating its “reasonable value” at P5,000.00. The value of the gun, being a disputed fact, must be duly proved in evidence. The Court cannot take judicial notice of matters that are not of public knowledge, capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges by reason of their judicial functions. The Revised Rules of Evidence, which govern as the case was decided in 1995, require that evidence be received for disputed facts with notice to the parties. Since the prosecution failed to present evidence proving the value of the firearm, a necessary element for determining the penalty and fine for malversation, the conviction cannot stand. The Court ordered the Sandiganbayan to cancel petitioner’s cash bail and reimburse the amount.