SECTION 42 of RULE 130 of the Rules of Court

Section 42. Part of res gestae. - Statements made by a person while a starting occurrence is
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an
equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of
the res gestae.

As a general rule, a witness can testify only to the facts he knows of his personal
knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception. (Rule 130, Sec. 36). All
other kinds of testimony are hearsay and are inadmissible as evidence. The Rules of
Court, however, provide several exceptions to the general rule, and one of which is when
the evidence is part of res gestae.

In People v. Rodrigo Salafranca (G.R. No. 173476, February 22, 2012), this court has
previously discussed the admissibility of testimony taken as part of res gestae, stating
that:

A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in
evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit:

(a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;

(b) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and

(c) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.

In Capila vs. People (GR No. 146161, July 17, 2006) defined res gestae, which literally
means “things done,” refers to those exclamations and statements by either participants,
victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during or immediately after the
commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made
as spontaneous reactions or utterances inspired by the excitement of the occasion, and
there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and faabricate a false statement.

In People of the Philippines vs. Pena (GR No. 133964, February 13, 2002), res gestae
comprehends a situation which presents a startling or unusual occurence sufficient to
produce a spontaneous and instinctive reaction, during which interval certain statements
are made under such circumstances as to show lact of forethought or deliberate design in
the formulation of their content.

In People of the Philippines vs. Hernandez (GR Nos. 67690-91, January 21, 1992),
the testimony by a person regarding statements made by another as that startling
occurence was taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto, although
essentially hearsay, is ADMISSIBLE exceptionally, on the theory that said statements
are “natural and spontaneous, unreflected and instinctive, made before there had been
opportunity to devise or contrive anything contrary to the real fact that occured,” it being
said that in these cases “it is the event speaking through the declarant”, not the latter
speaking of the event.

In Belbis Jr. vs. People of the Philippines (GR No. 181052, November 14, 2012), the
following factors are then considered in determining whether statements offered in
evidence as part of the res gestae have been made spontaneously, viz,:

1. The time that lapsed between the occurrence of the act or transaction and the making of
the statement;

2. The place where the statement was made;

3. The condition of the declarant when he made the statement;

4. The presence or absence of intervening events between the occurrence and the
statement relative thereto and;

5. The nature and circumstances of the statement itself;

In the book entitled “Evidence: The Bar Lecture Series” authored by Dean Williard
Riano, p. 470, recapitulates the admissible character of statements made as part of the res
gestae in stating that the admissibility is anchored on the theory that the statement was
uttered under circumstances where the opportunity to fabricate is absent. The statement is
a reflex action rather than a deliberate act, instinctive rather than deliberate. The natural
and spontaneous utterances are more convincing than the testimony of the same person
on the stand. The statement is made instinctively: the facts speaking through the party not
the party talking about the facts. (supra)