Below is a comprehensive discussion of the Requisites for Admissibility of Evidence under Rule 130 of the Philippine Rules on Evidence (part of the Rules of Court). This includes the conceptual framework, pertinent legal provisions, relevant jurisprudence, and practice pointers. Please note that while this is as exhaustive as possible for academic or bar-review purposes, it is still subject to updates from new jurisprudence or amendments. Always consult the latest promulgations and authoritative sources.

I. OVERVIEW OF EVIDENCE IN PHILIPPINE REMEDIAL LAW

Definition of Evidence (Rule 128, Sec. 1)
Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. It is the method by which facts are proved or disproved.
Scope of Rule 130
Rule 130 governs the rules on the admissibility of evidence, including its requisites, types, presentation, and limitations. Under the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, effective 2020), some sections and terminologies were adjusted, but the basic foundational principles remain the same.

II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMISSIBILITY

A. Two Fundamental Requisites for Admissibility

Under Philippine law, for a piece of evidence to be admissible, it must satisfy two primary requirements:

Relevance (or Materiality and Probativeness)
Competence (or Non-exclusion by Law or Rules)

These dual requirements are now generally captured in Rule 128, Section 3 (2019 Amendments), which states that evidence must be relevant to the fact in issue and must not be excluded by the Constitution, the law, or the Rules.

1. Relevance

Definition: Relevance is the logical relation of the evidence to the fact in issue. A fact in issue is one that is essential to the claim or defense. An item of evidence is relevant if it has any value in proving or disproving a fact that is of consequence to the outcome of the case.
Materiality: Sometimes used interchangeably with relevance. Material evidence refers to that which is directed at a fact in issue—i.e., facts related to the cause of action, defense, or ultimate issues framed by the pleadings.
Probativeness: Concerns the tendency of the evidence to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in issue. The quantum of relevance required is that the evidence has “any tendency” to make a fact more or less probable.

2. Competence (Non-exclusion by Law or Rules)

Definition: Even if evidence is relevant, it may still be excluded if there is a specific legal rule, constitutional provision, or statute that renders it inadmissible.
Sources of Exclusion:
- Constitutional grounds: e.g., involuntary confessions (violations of the right against self-incrimination or right to counsel).
- Statutory grounds: e.g., privileged communications (attorney-client, husband-wife, physician-patient, etc.).
- Rules-based grounds: e.g., hearsay rule, best evidence (original document) rule, parol evidence rule, etc.

B. Burden of Establishing Admissibility

Proponent: The party offering evidence must establish that it is both relevant and not excluded by any rule or statute.
Court’s Discretion: The trial court judges the admissibility, subject to review for grave abuse of discretion.

III. SPECIFIC RULES UNDER RULE 130

The following sections focus on how Rule 130 (Revised Rules on Evidence) elaborates on particular doctrines that affect admissibility.

A. The “Original Document” (Best Evidence) Rule

Formerly called the Best Evidence Rule, this principle is now referred to in the amended rules as the Original Document Rule (Rule 130, Secs. 3–8). The core principle remains:

General Rule: When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself.
Exceptions:
- When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the proponent.
- When the original is in the custody of the adverse party and the latter fails to produce it despite reasonable notice.
- When the document is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
- When the original is voluminous and a summary is allowed (provided certain conditions are met).

Rationale: Ensures authenticity and guards against mistakes in copying or quoting the contents of a document.

B. The Parol Evidence Rule

Rule 130, Sec. 9: When the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, no evidence of those terms may be introduced other than the contents of the written agreement itself.
Exceptions:
- When one party puts in issue the validity of the written agreement (fraud, mistake, illegality, etc.).
- When the written agreement is incomplete, ambiguous, or the subject of a collateral agreement that does not contradict the main agreement.
Relevance to Admissibility: Violations of the parol evidence rule may render extrinsic evidence inadmissible to vary or contradict a complete and unambiguous writing.

C. Hearsay Rule and Its Exceptions

Definition of Hearsay: An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
General Rule: Hearsay is inadmissible because the declarant is not in court to be cross-examined on the statement’s veracity and correctness.
Exceptions (Rule 130, Sec. 37, as revised):
- Dying Declarations
- Declarations Against Interest
- Act or Declaration About Pedigree
- Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree
- Common Reputation
- Part of the Res Gestae (Spontaneous Statement)
- Entries in the Course of Business
- Entries in Official Records
- Commercial Lists and the Like
- Learned Treatises
- Testimony or Deposition at a Former Trial (subject to conditions)
Relevance to Admissibility: Even if relevant, a statement that is hearsay is barred unless it qualifies under an exception explicitly provided by law or rules.

D. Opinion Rule

Rule 130, Sec. 49: Generally, the opinion of a witness is not admissible except with respect to:
1. Expert Witnesses: Specialized knowledge, training, or experience in a relevant field.
2. Ordinary Witnesses: Opinions on matters of identity, handwriting, mental condition, or impressions of emotion, behavior, or condition that are rationally based on their own perception.

E. Authentication and Proof of Documents

Authentication: The process of proving that a document is what its proponent claims it to be.
Private Documents must generally be authenticated (i.e., the signature or handwriting must be identified by a witness or by some other method allowed by the Rules) before they are admitted in evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 20).
Public Documents are self-authenticating (certified true copies, official publications, etc.), though certain formalities still apply.

F. Privileged Communications

Concept: These are communications recognized by law as private, and disclosure thereof cannot be compelled.
Examples: Attorney-client privilege, marital privilege, physician-patient privilege, priest-penitent privilege, public officers’ privilege for state secrets.
Impact on Admissibility: If evidence falls within a recognized privilege, it is inadmissible.

G. Other Exclusionary Rules

Illegally Obtained Evidence (e.g., from unreasonable searches and seizures, or confessions without counsel) may be inadmissible under constitutional mandates.
Subsequent Remedial Measures (in civil cases) may be excluded under certain circumstances to encourage repairs or improvements without fear of the evidence being used as an admission of fault.

IV. APPLICATION IN PRACTICE

A. Determination of Admissibility

Preliminary Matters (Rule 132, Sec. 2): The judge may conduct a voir dire or preliminary examination of the witness or object to determine admissibility.
Offer of Evidence (Rule 132, Sec. 34): Evidence must be offered orally or in writing at the time it is presented in court. The opposing party may object.
Ruling on Objections: The court must promptly rule on objections. A piece of evidence that is objected to on valid grounds (e.g., hearsay, violation of the best evidence rule, privileged communication) is generally rejected.

B. Weight vs. Admissibility

Distinction: Admissibility is about whether the evidence may be introduced; weight concerns the degree of persuasion or credibility the court gives to the admitted evidence.
Even if admitted, evidence may still be accorded little or no weight if it is found unreliable or contradicted by more credible evidence.

C. Common Pitfalls

Failure to Lay Proper Foundation: E.g., not establishing the chain of custody for an object, failing to authenticate a document, or not showing personal knowledge for testimonial evidence.
Introducing Hearsay Without an Exception: Many new lawyers overlook the necessity of fitting statements into a recognized exception.
Ignoring Privileged Communications: Attempting to present evidence of a private communication that is protected by law is a classic basis for objection.

V. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE

While the Rules of Court and statutory provisions form the backbone of admissibility, Supreme Court decisions clarify their application. Notable principles include:

Relevance and Probative Value
- Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120095 (1996): The Court reiterated that evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
Hearsay and Exceptions
- People v. Callao, G.R. No. 141152 (2003): Strict application of the hearsay rule and admission of dying declarations; the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of the declarant’s consciousness of impending death.
Authentication of Documents
- Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140281 (2002): Stressed that a private document must be authenticated before it can be received in evidence.

(Always check for the latest rulings to confirm whether these cases have been superseded or modified.)

VI. LEGAL ETHICS CONSIDERATIONS

Candor to the Court: A lawyer must not offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. (Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility)
Duty to Present Competent Evidence: Lawyers must diligently ensure evidence submitted meets requirements for admissibility. (Canon 18, CPR)
Respect for Privileged Information: Lawyers must uphold confidentiality and avoid disclosing privileged communications. (Canon 21, CPR)

VII. PRACTICAL CHECKLIST FOR OFFERING EVIDENCE

Identify the Fact in Issue: Make sure the evidence directly relates to a claim or defense.
Ensure Relevance: Establish the logical connection between the evidence and the fact in issue.
Check Competence / Exclusion:
- Is it hearsay? If yes, is there an applicable exception?
- Is it a private document? Has it been authenticated?
- Is it privileged?
- Does it violate any constitutional or statutory provision?
Observe Proper Procedure:
- Mark exhibits properly.
- Lay the foundation (chain of custody, personal knowledge, authenticity).
- Formally offer the evidence at the correct time.
Be Prepared for Objections:
- Anticipate possible grounds for objection.
- Research jurisprudence that supports the admissibility of your evidence.

VIII. CONCLUSION

In Philippine remedial law, under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, admissibility of evidence depends on relevance and competence. All evidence must relate to the fact in issue and not be excluded by law, rules, or the Constitution. Specific rules such as the Original Document Rule, the Parol Evidence Rule, the Hearsay Rule, and privileges further refine the question of whether a given piece of evidence should be admitted. Mastery of these principles—and their interplay with ethical duties—is essential for effective advocacy in the Philippine legal system.

Always keep updated with the latest jurisprudence and administrative circulars affecting evidence rules, and remember that even admitted evidence can be accorded zero or minimal weight if it lacks credibility or if it is discredited during trial. The key is to present evidence that not only passes the threshold of admissibility but also convincingly establishes the facts in issue.

Disclaimer: This write-up is for educational and bar-review purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult the most recent text of the Rules of Court, updated jurisprudence, and applicable statutes for authoritative guidance.