CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE UNDER THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT (RULE 130)

1. Overview and Definition

Conditional admissibility refers to the admission of a piece of evidence subject to the condition that its relevance, materiality, or compliance with foundational requirements will be proved or connected at a later stage of the proceedings. If, by the end of the trial, the proponent fails to establish the necessary link or to satisfy the requisite elements for admissibility, the court may strike out or disregard the provisionally admitted evidence.

This principle recognizes the practical realities of trial: not all evidence can be perfectly laid out in strict chronological or logical order. Sometimes, a party must offer a document, testimony, or object before the rest of the connecting evidence is ready or available. Rather than causing delays or risking permanent exclusion, courts permit provisional or conditional receipt, provided the proponent ultimately “connects the dots.”

2. Legal Basis

While the term “conditional admissibility” is not given a separate, lengthy provision in the Rules of Court, it is implied under the rules governing:

Relevance and materiality (Rule 128, Sections 4, 5) – Evidence must have a relation to the fact in issue to be admitted. If that relation is not immediately apparent, the court may allow its introduction subject to later proof of relevance.
Authentication and proof of documents (Rule 132) – Many documentary exhibits are admitted “subject to further identification” or “subject to cross-examination” or “subject to the submission of the original.”
Other foundational requirements (e.g., best evidence rule, hearsay exceptions, chain of custody in drug cases, etc.) – The court may allow certain exhibits or testimonies conditionally when some technical or foundational requirement (like establishing that a document is a duly certified copy, or that a witness is competent to testify on certain facts) will be satisfied later.

Conditional admissibility is thus a well-established procedural tool that is part of the court’s discretion to effectively manage the flow of trial and to prevent premature exclusions of potentially relevant proofs.

3. Rationale

Preventing Delay and Injustice
Trials are often structured with multiple witnesses and multiple pieces of evidence that interlock. It may be cumbersome to wait for a specific foundational witness or a connecting witness before allowing a piece of evidence that ultimately hinges upon another piece of proof. Conditional admissibility avoids excessive delay and prevents a party from being unfairly handicapped simply because of scheduling or minor technical hurdles.
Orderly Presentation of Evidence
Courts generally allow parties some leeway in the order of presentation. By making an exhibit or testimony conditionally admissible, the court allows the proponent to continue with its presentation in a coherent manner, with the understanding that if the missing link is never provided, the condition will not be fulfilled and the evidence will be disregarded.
Fair Opportunity to Present a Complete Case
The court’s willingness to accept evidence subject to condition ensures that each party has a fair opportunity to present the full picture. It also signals to both sides the necessity of tying up loose ends: if a proponent fails to meet a required condition, the evidence can still be excluded at the final reckoning.

4. Procedure and Mechanics

Offer of Evidence
- During trial, all evidence must be offered before the court may consider it. When offering evidence that is not yet fully established, counsel may explicitly state that the offer is made “subject to the later presentation of (witness/foundation/connecting document).”
- The court, if satisfied that the evidence will likely be linked or properly established, admits it provisionally or conditionally.
Objection and Court Rulings
- Opposing counsel may object on grounds of relevance, incompetency, or lack of foundation.
- If the court sees that it is still premature to rule definitively, it may admit the evidence subject to the proponent’s compliance with the rule or requirement in question (for example, the best evidence rule or proper authentication).
Subsequent Fulfillment of the Condition
- The proponent must later present the witness, document, or circumstances that complete the evidentiary foundation.
- The connecting evidence must show why or how the earlier evidence is relevant, material, and otherwise competent.
Failure to Fulfill the Condition
- If, by the end of the evidence presentation, the proponent fails to lay the necessary predicate or produce the promised linking proof, the opposing party may move to strike out or exclude the conditionally admitted evidence.
- The court then disregards it in deciding the case.

5. Illustrative Examples

Documentary Evidence Requiring Authentication
- A party presents a photocopy of a purported contract. The original is not yet in court, nor is there immediate testimony from the document’s custodian. The court may allow the photocopy to be marked and identified by a witness conditionally, with the requirement that the original be produced later for comparison or that a proper basis for using a secondary evidence rule is laid. If the proponent never produces the original (or never establishes a proper exception), the court will strike out the photocopy.
Hearsay Exception Requiring Further Foundation
- A statement might appear to be hearsay on its face, but the proponent asserts it qualifies under a specific exception (e.g., res gestae, dying declaration, or business record exception). The court can provisionally accept the testimony, subject to proof that the foundational elements of the hearsay exception are fulfilled (such as the statement being made under a startling event for res gestae). If the proponent fails to prove such elements, the testimony is excluded at final assessment.
Chain of Custody in Drug Cases
- Often in drug cases, exhibits of seized substances are provisionally marked and identified, subject to the testimony of forensic chemists or police officers who handled them. If the prosecution eventually fails to establish an unbroken chain of custody, the exhibit remains excluded despite having been initially received for identification.

6. Effect in the Final Judgment

When a piece of evidence is admitted conditionally, the burden lies on the offering party to complete the chain of proof. If, come judgment, the trial court determines that the condition was not met, that evidence plays no part in the court’s decision. Conversely, if the condition is satisfied, the evidence is treated as fully admitted and is weighed accordingly in the adjudication.

7. Relevant Jurisprudence

Philippine case law consistently upholds the trial court’s wide discretion in handling the manner of admitting and appreciating evidence. While “conditional admissibility” may not always be explicitly labeled as such in jurisprudential discussions, courts frequently address situations where:

Evidence was objected to for lack of foundation but was allowed subject to subsequent compliance (e.g., production of the original document, demonstration of personal knowledge, or identification by a competent witness).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the principle that evidence can be struck out if the proponent fails to connect it with the ultimate facts in issue or to prove its authenticity when such was the declared purpose of its conditional admission.
The rationale is anchored in preventing surprise and unfairness while encouraging parties to remain diligent in laying the proper predicate for their evidence.

While there may not be a single controlling Supreme Court decision whose title is “on all fours” about the phrase “conditional admissibility,” the principle is woven through countless rulings where the Court reaffirms that admission of evidence remains subject to compliance with foundational requirements.

8. Practical Pointers for Lawyers

Explicitly State the Condition
- When offering evidence whose foundation is incomplete, inform the court clearly: “Your Honor, we offer this Exhibit ‘X’ subject to further identification by witness A who will testify on the authenticity of the document.” This transparency puts all parties and the court on notice.
Keep Track of Promises
- Once you have offered something conditionally, ensure you follow through. Lawyers must be methodical in presenting the missing link—be it a witness, additional documents, or a demonstration of the chain of custody—lest the conditionally admitted exhibit be excluded later.
Object and Move to Strike
- For the opposing lawyer: if the proponent never fulfills the condition, file a motion to strike out or specifically request in your formal offer of evidence or in your memoranda that the unconnected evidence be disregarded.
Highlight the Completion of the Chain
- The proponent should, during the formal offer of evidence (often near the close of a party’s presentation), articulate how each piece of conditionally admitted evidence is now “duly connected” and “founded.” Reiterate that all conditions are met and show the court the cohesive evidentiary puzzle.

9. Conclusion

Conditional admissibility is a cornerstone of Philippine evidentiary procedure under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. It reflects the balancing act between efficiency and fairness: courts do not want to exclude potentially critical evidence prematurely, but they also must ensure that such evidence meets all the legal requisites for admissibility. Once evidence is conditionally admitted, it remains the responsibility of the offering party to fulfill the condition—be it laying the proper foundation, connecting it with other evidence, or establishing relevance. Failure to do so will result in the court striking the evidence or disregarding it at the time of judgment.

Understanding and properly invoking conditional admissibility ensures that litigants can present a comprehensive case without undue technicalities, while still preserving the fundamental rules that protect the integrity of judicial proceedings.