001 General Principles | Rules on Evidence | by Dean Riano

The script discusses a scenario where a petitioner filed for voluntary insolvency, prompting the court to notify creditors. Despite the lack of responses from creditors, the court refused to declare them in default. The court's decision is not considered a grave abuse of discretion, as the petitioner's motion to declare creditors in default was based on court rules, which are not applicable to insolvency proceedings. The script further explains that the rules of court, including the Rules of Evidence, do not apply to certain proceedings like insolvency, industrial cases, and naturalization.

This paragraph delves into the applicability of the Rules of Evidence in non-judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has ruled that these rules cannot be insisted upon in non-judicial proceedings, such as those involving the NLRC or naturalization cases. The script references specific cases, such as Sassan vs. NLRC, where the court admitted evidence that would not be permissible in a judicial proceeding. The distinction between proof and evidence is also highlighted, emphasizing that evidence is meant to ascertain the truth of facts, not laws.

The script explains the concept of judicial notice of laws, which are mandatory and do not require proof in court. It emphasizes that everyone is expected to know the law, and ignorance is not an excuse for non-compliance. The focus is on proving facts, not the truth of the law itself. The discussion also touches on the difference between the existence of a fact and the truth of a law, and how this impacts the burden of proof in legal proceedings.

This paragraph discusses the implications of a defendant pleading guilty in a court of law. While a guilty plea eliminates the need for the prosecution to prove guilt, the court still retains the discretion to require evidence to determine the appropriate penalty. The script references Rule 116, which outlines the conditions under which a court may still require evidence even after a guilty plea, particularly in cases involving capital offenses.

The script explores a case where a plaintiff files an action for damages based on quasi-delict, alleging negligence that caused harm. The defendant admits to the allegations, which simplifies the process as there is no need to prove the existence of the debt or the demand for payment. The focus shifts to proving the amount of damages, which may still require evidence despite the admission of liability.

This paragraph addresses the issue of denying the genuineness of actionable documents in a foreclosure case. The script clarifies that to deny the genuineness of such documents, the denial must be specific and under oath. It also discusses the implications of such denials on the burden of proof and the necessity of presenting evidence to support allegations of usury.

The script discusses the concept of corpus delicti, which refers to the body of evidence that establishes the elements of a crime. It explains that in cases of homicide or murder, the actual body is not always required for conviction, as long as there is sufficient evidence to prove death and the act that caused it. The discussion extends to the necessity of identifying drugs in drug-related cases, highlighting the differences in the requirements for proving crimes based on the nature of the offense.

This paragraph focuses on the specific requirements for proving drug-related crimes, emphasizing the need to identify the drugs as the ones confiscated. The script references Republic Act 9165, the comprehensive drug law of 2002, and highlights the importance of the chain of custody in such cases. It contrasts this with other types of crimes, where the presentation of the actual items stolen is not always necessary for conviction.