The Concept of ‘The Admissibility of Evidence’ (Relevancy and Competency)

I. Introduction

This memorandum exhaustively examines the foundational concept of the admissibility of evidence under Philippine remedial law, with a specific focus on the dual requirements of relevancy and competency. The analysis will then proceed to a detailed exposition of one critical exclusionary rule governing competency: The Best Evidence Rule (also known as the Original Document Rule). The purpose is to delineate the legal framework that determines whether proffered evidence may be formally received and considered by a court in deciding the merits of a case.

II. The General Concept of Admissibility of Evidence

Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether the evidence presented may be received by the court for consideration. It is governed by rules of evidence designed to secure a fair and efficient ascertainment of the truth. For evidence to be admissible, it must satisfy all applicable rules of admissibility. The overarching principle is that evidence is admissible if it is both relevant and competent, and not excluded by any specific rule, statute, or constitutional provision. The determination of admissibility rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge, subject to established legal parameters.

III. The First Requirement: Relevancy

Relevancy is the logical relation between the evidence offered and a fact in issue in the case. Evidence is considered relevant if it has a tendency in reason to establish the probability or improbability of a fact in controversy. Rule 128, Section 4 of the Rules of Court defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any value in reason as tending to prove any matter provable in an action.” The matter to which the evidence is directed must be material, meaning it is of such consequence to the issue that it could affect the outcome. Irrelevant evidence is always inadmissible.

IV. The Second Requirement: Competency

Competency pertains to the inherent characteristics or qualifications of the evidence itself that make it suitable for admission. Even if evidence is relevant, it may be excluded if it is not competent. Competency is governed by specific exclusionary rules developed by statute or jurisprudence to address policy concerns such as the reliability of the evidence, the protection of certain relationships, or the prevention of prejudice. Examples of rules affecting competency include the hearsay rule, the parol evidence rule, the rule on character evidence, and the Best Evidence Rule.

V. The Best Evidence Rule (Original Document Rule): An Exclusionary Rule of Competency

The Best Evidence Rule is a fundamental exclusionary rule that falls under the requirement of competency. It is codified in Rule 130, Sections 2 through 7 of the Rules of Court. The rule provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, writing, recording, photograph, or other equivalent means of recording information, the original must be produced. It is predicated on the desire to prevent fraud, inaccuracy, or mistake that may arise from the use of a copy or oral testimony regarding the contents. It is important to note that the rule applies only when the contents of the document are the very facts in issue, or are otherwise directly material to the case.

VI. Key Components and Exceptions to the Best Evidence Rule

A. What Constitutes an “Original”: Under Rule 130, Section 4, an original of a document includes: (1) the writing or recording itself, or any counterpart intended to have the same effect; (2) a negative of a photograph or any print therefrom; and (3) if data is stored in a computer, any printout or output readable by sight, shown to reflect the data accurately.
B. The Rule on Secondary Evidence: If the original document is unavailable, its contents may be proved by secondary evidence. Rule 130, Section 5 mandates a hierarchy and foundation requirement: the proponent must first prove the existence and due execution of the original, and then establish its loss, destruction, or unavailability without bad faith on their part. Thereafter, secondary evidence may be admitted, with a copy or a recital of the contents in an authentic document being preferred over oral testimony.
C. Exceptions Where the Original is Not Required: The rule does not apply in numerous situations outlined in Rule 130, Section 3 and jurisprudence, including, but not limited to:
1. When the original has been lost or destroyed, without bad faith;
2. When the original is in the custody or under the control of the adverse party who fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
3. When the original consists of numerous accounts or documents that cannot be examined in court without great loss of time, and the fact sought to be established is only the general result;
4. When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer;
5. When the fact to be proved is the existence or execution of the document, rather than its contents.

VII. Comparative Analysis: Relevancy vs. Competency vs. The Best Evidence Rule

The following table clarifies the distinctions and relationships between these core concepts:

VIII. Judicial Application and Burden of Proof

The proponent of the evidence bears the burden of demonstrating its admissibility by establishing both relevancy and competency. For the Best Evidence Rule, the proponent offering secondary evidence must lay a proper foundation, proving the existence, execution, and unavailability of the original as required by Rule 130, Section 5. The trial court’s ruling on the application of these rules is generally accorded respect, unless a grave abuse of discretion is shown.

IX. Common Practical Implications and Pitfalls

Practitioners must: (1) always analyze whether the purpose of offering a document is to prove its contents (triggering the rule) or some other fact (e.g., its existence, delivery, or a party’s knowledge of it); (2) meticulously prepare the foundation for secondary evidence if the original is unavailable; and (3) remember that the rule applies to writings, recordings, and photographs, including modern data compilations. A common pitfall is attempting to prove the terms of a contract through oral testimony when the written contract itself exists and is available.

X. Conclusion

The admissibility of evidence in Philippine law is a structured process anchored on the twin pillars of relevancy and competency. Relevancy ensures the evidence is logically probative of a material issue, while competency ensures it conforms to legal standards of reliability and policy. The Best Evidence Rule serves as a critical exclusionary rule of competency, prioritizing the production of original documents to ensure accuracy when their contents are in dispute. A clear understanding of this hierarchy—from general admissibility down to specific rules like the Best Evidence Rule—is essential for effective advocacy and the proper administration of justice.