Below is a comprehensive, straightforward discussion of “Similar Acts as Evidence” under Philippine remedial law—particularly the Revised Rules on Evidence (Rule 130). The focus is on the rule, its rationale, exceptions, leading jurisprudence, and relevant practice points. Citations to specific rules and pertinent case law are included for clarity. This write-up reflects both the historical framework (pre-2019 amendments) and the current version of the rules (post-2019 amendments), noting that the Supreme Court promulgated significant changes through A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, which took effect in May 2020.

1. Governing Provision

Old Rule (Before the 2019 Amendments)

Section 48, Rule 130 of the (old) Rules of Court provided: [ \textit{“Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.”} ]

Current Rule (Under A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)

Section 34, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence now provides: [ \textit{“Evidence of similar acts, transactions or omissions is not admissible to prove the character of a person or his/her conduct on a particular occasion. It may, however, be admissible (a) to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or the absence of mistake or accident; or (b) to show the act or transaction was a part of a common scheme or plan.”} ]

Despite the reorganization and rewording, the essence remains: as a general rule, similar acts evidence is inadmissible to show propensity or predisposition. However, there are carefully delineated exceptions where such evidence becomes relevant and admissible.

2. Rationale Behind the General Rule

Propensity Evidence is Generally Prohibited
The law disfavors using evidence of a person’s prior or other acts merely to prove that they have a certain character and that they acted in conformity with such character at the time in question. This avoids the unfair prejudice that might arise from jurors or judges concluding, “He did it before, so he must have done it again.”
Risk of Confusion and Undue Prejudice
Evidence of other acts can easily mislead or distract the trier of fact from the specific incident at bar, causing confusion and potentially resulting in decisions based on emotions or biases rather than objective assessment of the evidence.
Protecting Accused (Criminal Cases)
In criminal proceedings, excluding mere propensity evidence safeguards the presumption of innocence by ensuring that the accused is tried only for the act charged and not for their alleged bad character or prior misdeeds.

3. Exceptions: When “Similar Acts” May Be Admitted

Under both the old and new rules, the law carves out specific exceptions that allow the introduction of “similar acts” evidence—not to show bad character, but to prove specific, relevant facts in dispute. While the exact wording may differ slightly between the old and current rules, the underlying principles largely overlap.

To Prove Motive
- Evidence of similar acts may be introduced to show the existence of a motive to commit the act charged. For instance, a series of similar disputes between the defendant and the victim might reveal a motive such as revenge or financial gain.
To Prove Opportunity
- Similar acts might show a defendant’s particular access or circumstances that made it possible for them to commit the offense.
To Prove Intent or Specific Intent
- Where intent is at issue (e.g., distinguishing between mere negligence and intentional wrongdoing), prior acts of a similar nature can shed light on whether the act in question was deliberate or accidental.
To Prove Preparation or Plan
- In certain crimes or civil cases, evidence of a common plan or preparation (e.g., forging documents in earlier instances or a repeated scheme to defraud) is admissible to demonstrate the means or method by which the act at bar was orchestrated.
To Prove Knowledge
- If the defendant claims lack of knowledge (e.g., “I was unaware this was illegal”), previous similar transactions where the defendant clearly demonstrated awareness can be shown to refute the claim of ignorance.
To Prove Identity
- Where the identity of the wrongdoer is controverted, evidence of past acts bearing a “signature” or “modus operandi” can be introduced to establish that the accused is the person responsible (e.g., a unique pattern of break-ins).
To Disprove Mistake or Accident
- If a defendant claims that the incident was an accident or mistake, similar prior incidents under comparable circumstances can be used to show that repeated “coincidences” are unlikely.
To Prove Common Scheme or Plan
- Evidence of prior or subsequent acts that form part of a larger, integrated scheme is admissible. This is often invoked in complex fraud or conspiracy cases where multiple steps or repeated patterns show a single overarching plan.
Habit, Custom, or Usage (Old Rule Emphasis)
- Under the old rule, habit or custom evidence was also explicitly recognized. Although not always labeled the same in the revised rule, evidence of a “habit” (a regular, semi-automatic response to a repeated situation) may still be relevant to prove that the same behavior occurred on the occasion in question.

4. Practical Illustrations in Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has provided various case examples where similar acts evidence was admitted or excluded:

People v. Pagdayawan
- The Court allowed evidence of prior similar sexual assaults on the same victim to prove the accused’s lewd intent, showing a common scheme or pattern of behavior.
People v. Tavera
- Evidence of previous threats made by the accused against the victim was admitted to prove motive and intent.
People v. Reyes
- The Court stressed that evidence of prior convictions for theft cannot be admitted to conclude the accused again committed theft—absent a recognized exception (e.g., identity, modus operandi).
People v. Guiani
- Affirmed that the purpose of “similar acts” must be something other than showing bad character; the probative value of such evidence must substantially outweigh the risk of prejudice.

5. Admissibility Versus Weight of Evidence

Even if “similar acts” evidence fits within an exception, it must still meet fundamental requirements of:

Relevance
- The proponent must clearly articulate how the evidence of other acts relates to a material issue (e.g., identity, intent).
Competence
- The evidence must not violate other rules (e.g., hearsay rules, best evidence rule) and must be properly authenticated or proven.
Probative Value vs. Prejudicial Effect
- Courts perform a balancing test: if the risk of undue prejudice, confusion, or misleading the judge/jury significantly outweighs the probative value, the evidence may be excluded.

6. Procedure and Practice Tips

Notice Requirements
- In criminal cases, prosecutors often provide notice to the defense before introducing “similar acts” evidence, ensuring fairness and preventing trial by ambush.
Limiting Instructions
- If such evidence is admitted, courts typically issue a limiting instruction reminding the fact-finder that the evidence is to be used only for the specific permissible purpose (e.g., proving identity, plan) and not to conclude the defendant’s propensity or bad character.
Objecting to Improper Use
- Defense counsel must timely object when the prosecution (or opposing party in a civil case) attempts to use “similar acts” solely to inflame bias or portray the client as a “bad person.” An effective objection highlights the lack of a permissible link to an issue genuinely in dispute.
Laying the Foundation
- Proponents of “similar acts” evidence must carefully lay the groundwork—showing the act’s closeness in time, location, or method to the charged act. The similarity and specificity often determine whether the evidence meets the threshold for relevance under an exception.
Ethical Considerations
- Lawyers should remember their duty to the court. They must present “similar acts” evidence only for valid legal reasons, not to harass or degrade the opposing party or witness. Likewise, they must not conceal or distort the purpose for introducing such evidence.

7. Key Takeaways

General Prohibition: “Similar acts” are inadmissible to prove a person’s character or propensity.
Key Exceptions: Motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, and part of a larger scheme.
Strict Balancing: Courts scrutinize the probative value of the evidence versus its potential prejudice.
Procedural Safeguards: Limiting instructions and proper notice help ensure fairness.
Jurisprudential Guidance: Philippine Supreme Court decisions consistently uphold that “similar acts” must be directly relevant to a material issue other than bad character.
Updated Language Under the 2019 Amendments: While reorganized, the core principle remains intact—exclusion of propensity evidence but allowance under listed exceptions.

Final Word

“Similar Acts as Evidence,” under Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, is a nuanced doctrine balancing the probative force of prior or subsequent conduct against the inherent dangers of prejudice and confusion. Courts in the Philippines uphold the principle that one should be judged on the specific evidence of the act charged, not on generalized character. Nonetheless, where “similar acts” illuminate motive, intent, identity, or a common plan, such evidence is critical in uncovering the truth and administering justice. The careful practitioner must ensure meticulous compliance with procedural requisites, a clear articulation of the permissible purpose, and a robust defense against any misuse of this type of evidence.