Short answer. No — not as part of its case-in-chief. Under Rule 130, Section 54, the prosecution may not prove your bad moral character unless on rebuttal, meaning only after you yourself open the door by presenting evidence of your good moral character. Your reputation cannot substitute for proof of the crime charged.
What the law says
The accused may prove his or her good moral character [.] pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. However, the prosecution may not prove his or her bad moral character unless on rebuttal.
Rule 130, Section 54 — Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions. Read the full provision →
Character is not proof of conduct
The starting point of Rule 130, Section 54 is a general exclusion: Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. A criminal trial is about whether you did the specific act charged, not about what kind of person you are. The prosecution must prove the offense with evidence of the offense — testimony, documents, objects — and cannot invite the court to reason that because you are supposedly a bad person, you probably committed this crime too.
The door is yours to open
The rule lets the accused go first, and only the accused. You may prove his or her good moral character where it is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged — honesty in an estafa case, for example, rather than character at large. The prosecution's hands stay tied until you do: it may not prove his or her bad moral character unless on rebuttal. So if the defense never places your character in issue, evidence of your supposed bad character has no place in the prosecution's case. That choice is strategic, because once you present good-character evidence, you invite the rebuttal the rule otherwise forbids.
Other character evidence the rule allows
Section 54 opens two further doors in criminal cases and beyond. First, the character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged — a defense may sometimes turn on who the complainant is shown to be. Second, for witnesses generally, evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached: you cannot bolster a witness who has not yet been attacked. None of these openings changes the core protection — the prosecution still cannot lead with your bad character.
How character is proved when it is admissible
Where character evidence is allowed at all, the rule limits its form: proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct, and where character is itself an essential element of a charge, claim or defense, specific past conduct may be proved directly. In practice, this means an objection is available the moment the prosecution offers reputation or past-misdeed evidence in its case-in-chief — and deciding whether to present good-character witnesses of your own is a judgment call to weigh carefully with counsel.