People vs KulaisGR. No 100901-08July 16, 1998Facts:Felix Rosario and several other public officers of the of Zamboanga City, was kidnapped for ransom by the accused appellants. They were released after payment.Five informations for kidnapping for ransom were filed before the RTC of Zambaonga against the accused. Another three informations for kidnapping were also filed which set forth identical allegations save for the names of the victims.9 of the 12 accused were apprehended and then the court found several of the accused including appellant Kulais guilty of 5 counts of kidnapping for ransom and 1 count of kidnapping a woman and a public officer. Trial court based their decision on the testiomines of victims and held that no taint of evil or dishonest motive was imputed or imputable to prosecution witnesses.Later on, several of the accused filed their Joint notice of appeal. However, they withdrew it because of their application for amnesty, except for Jailon Kulais who still seeks reconsideration of the SC.One of the issue raised by the accused was that due process was not observed in taking judicial notice of a material testimony GIVEN IN ANOTHER CASE by Lt. Feliciano, who allegedly was the team leader of the government troops which allegedly captured the accused-appellants in an encounter; thereby, depriving the accused-appellants their right to cross-examine him.Issue:Whether the due process of the accused was denied in taking judicial notice of a material testimony given in another case Held:No. Due process was still observed.As a general rule, courts should not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending in the same court, or have been heard and are actually pending before the same judge. This is especially true in criminal cases, where the accused has the constitutional right to confront and cross-examin the witnesses against him.However, even if the court a quo did take judicial notice of the testimony of Lt. Feliciano, it did not use such testimony in deciding the cases against the appelant. Hence, appellant Kulais was not denied due process. His conviction was based mainly on the postive identification made by some of the kidnap victims.