Short answer. No, they are meant to be uniform. Rule 128, Section 2 states that the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or the Rules themselves. Uniformity is the default; departures require a specific legal basis.
What the law says
The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these
Rule 128, Section 2 — Scope. Read the full provision →
A single evidentiary standard across the judiciary
Section 2 sets uniformity as the governing principle: the rules of evidence apply the same way in all courts and in all trials and hearings. A litigant does not need to learn a different evidentiary standard depending on which court or which type of hearing their case falls into, as a general matter. This uniformity is part of what allows lawyers and litigants to rely on a single, coherent body of evidentiary practice across the entire judicial system.
Exceptions must come from law or the Rules themselves
That uniformity is not absolute — Section 2 allows departures 'except as otherwise provided by law or these Rules.' In other words, any variation from the general evidentiary standard has to be traceable to an actual statute or a specific provision within the Rules, not to informal practice or convenience. This keeps exceptions from multiplying informally through custom or local practice, since only law or the Rules themselves can create a genuine departure from uniformity.
Why uniformity matters practically
Because the baseline is sameness, a party relying on the general rules of evidence can expect them to apply consistently whether the matter is before a first-level trial court or a higher court, in a civil hearing or a criminal one, unless a specific, identifiable exception says otherwise. It also means a party moving a case, or an issue, from one court to another does not have to relearn a different evidentiary framework along the way.
Where genuine exceptions actually come from
Real departures from the uniform rules do exist, but they are narrow and specific rather than general. Special proceedings, small claims cases, and certain administrative or quasi-judicial bodies operate under their own rules that may relax or modify particular evidentiary requirements, and specific statutes sometimes create their own evidentiary presumptions or standards for particular kinds of cases. What Section 2 forecloses is the idea that a court or tribunal can informally decide, without a basis in law or the Rules, to apply a looser or stricter evidentiary standard simply because it thinks that approach is more convenient for the type of case before it.