Short answer. Yes. Rule 130, Section 27 provides that the act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her. It is not limited to spoken or written statements — conduct and even silence on a relevant fact can be used as an admission.
What the law says
The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her.
Rule 130, Section 27 — Admission of a party. Read the full provision →
Three forms an admission can take
Section 27 defines admission of a party broadly, covering acts, declarations, and omissions. This means an admission is not confined to something a party said or wrote — something a party did, or conspicuously failed to do, in relation to a relevant fact can likewise be used as evidence against that party. This broader reach reflects that a party's conduct, or a party's telling silence in a situation calling for a response, can be just as revealing as an outright statement.
The relevance requirement
The act, declaration, or omission must relate to a relevant fact to qualify under this section. This ties the admission rule back to the general relevance requirements found earlier in Rule 130 — not every act or statement by a party becomes usable evidence, only those bearing on a relevant fact in the case. This connects Section 27 to the broader relevance requirements found earlier in Rule 128, so an unrelated act or statement remains outside its reach.
Why this rule exists
A party's own acts, declarations, or omissions concerning a relevant fact are treated as inherently probative, on the theory that people generally do not act, speak, or stay silent about matters concerning themselves without some connection to what they believe to be true. That is why the rule allows this evidence to be used against the party who generated it.
How this differs from testimony given in court
An admission under Section 27 is something the party said, did, or failed to do outside the context of testifying under oath in the present proceeding — it is being offered precisely because it was made before the party had any incentive to shape it for litigation. That is part of why such statements, acts, or omissions carry independent evidentiary weight: they reflect what the party believed or did in the ordinary course of events, not testimony crafted for the courtroom. Because the rule reaches conduct and silence as well as words, a party should be mindful that failing to respond to an accusation under circumstances that would naturally call for a denial can itself become evidence used against them later, even though no statement was ever actually made.