2. Liberal Construction of the Rules on Evidence

Liberal Construction of the Rules on Evidence

Concept

Liberal construction means reading the Rules in light of their purpose: a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of actions and proceedings. In evidentiary questions, that purpose operates alongside the Rules’ function of providing sanctioned means to ascertain the truth about a matter of fact in a judicial proceeding. It does not dispense with the requirements for admitting evidence. (Rule 1, Sec. 6, Rules of Court)¹ (Rule 128, Sec. 1, A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)² (Rule 128, Sec. 3, A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)³

Governing provisions

• Rule 1, Section 6 directs liberal construction of the Rules to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (Rule 1, Sec. 6, Rules of Court)¹
• Rule 128, Section 3 states the test for admissibility: evidence must be relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, law, or the Rules. (Rule 128, Sec. 3, A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)³
• For cases governed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence, Rule 2, Section 2 likewise calls for liberal construction to assist in a just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination. Interpretation must also consider the international origin of the Electronic Commerce Act. (Rule 2, Sec. 2, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)⁴

Requisites / Rules

• Start with the evidentiary issue, not an abstract appeal to liberality. Ask whether the offered evidence bears the required relation to the fact in issue and whether a constitutional, statutory, or rule-based exclusion applies. (Rule 128, Sec. 4, A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)⁵ (Rule 128, Sec. 3, A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)³
• Apply the same rules of evidence in courts, trials, and hearings, subject to provisions otherwise made by law or the Rules. Liberal construction does not erase that express qualification. (Rule 128, Sec. 2, A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)⁶ (Rule 1, Sec. 6, Rules of Court)¹

Distinctions

Admissibility and probative value are separate questions. In People v. Lastimosa, the Court stated that a duplicate may be admissible to the same extent as the original under the cited provisions, subject to a genuine question of authenticity or an unjust result. The inability to produce the original may affect the weight assigned to evidence without necessarily defeating admissibility. (People v. Lastimosa, G.R. No. 265758, 3 February 2025)⁷

Key doctrines

Liberal construction serves the fair and efficient determination of cases, but it is not a substitute for an applicable evidentiary rule. In Jesus v. Sanchez-Malit, the Court treated relevance and rules of exclusion as matters to be considered together. The analysis therefore remains anchored in what the Rules permit, rather than in a general preference to receive evidence. (Rule 1, Sec. 6, Rules of Court)¹ (Jesus v. Sanchez-Malit., A.C. No. 6258, 8 July 2014)⁸

Exceptions

Evidence on collateral matters is generally not allowed. Rule 128, Section 4 permits it when it tends in a reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. This is an express rule to apply, not a reason to admit collateral material without examining its connection to the issue.

Bar tip

State the purpose of liberal construction, then apply the specific rule on relevance, exclusion, or the type of evidence offered. Do not treat liberality as an independent ground for admissibility. (Rule 1, Sec. 6, Rules of Court)¹ (Rule 128, Sec. 3, A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC)³