Below is a comprehensive discussion of Part of the Res Gestae as an exception to the hearsay rule under Philippine law, particularly under the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Court (effective May 1, 2020) and relevant jurisprudence. I have organized the material to be as thorough and straightforward as possible.

I. INTRODUCTION

“Res gestae” literally means “things done.” In Philippine evidence law, it refers to certain statements and surrounding circumstances so closely connected with a startling occurrence or event that they may be deemed trustworthy and admissible despite ordinarily being hearsay. The rationale is that these statements are spontaneous reactions to the excitement of the event, thus made without the opportunity for deliberate thought or fabrication.

Under the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, the concept of res gestae is discussed in Rule 130, Sections 42 and 43, covering (1) Spontaneous Statements and (2) Verbal Acts. These are collectively referred to under the traditional label “res gestae.”

II. RULE 130 PROVISIONS ON RES GESTAE

A. Spontaneous Statements (Section 42)

Sec. 42. Spontaneous Statement.—A statement made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. The statement must have been made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise, and with respect to the circumstances thereof.

This provision covers what used to be called “excited utterances” or “spontaneous exclamations.” The key elements are:

Existence of a startling occurrence or event – There must be an event sufficiently exciting or startling to render normal reflective thought processes inoperative.
Statement made while under the stress of excitement – The declarant must still be influenced by the excitement of the occurrence, such that there is no opportunity to contrive or fabricate a falsehood.
Statement concerns the occurrence – The subject matter of the utterance must relate to the circumstances of the startling event.

B. Verbal Acts (Section 43)

Sec. 43. Verbal Acts.—Statements accompanying an equivocal act, material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.

This covers statements known as “verbal acts” or “statements accompanying an equivocal act.” The principle behind verbal acts is that the words themselves, spoken simultaneously with an act, can clarify or explain the nature, character, or legal import of that act. For instance, statements made by a person at the time he hands over money to another—e.g., “This is repayment of my debt”—can be admitted not to prove the truth of the statement per se but to show the legal significance of the payment.

Under this provision:

The act must be equivocal – The act itself should need clarification or explanation of its import or legal significance.
The statement must accompany or be contemporaneous with the act – The timing ensures the statement is part of the transaction or occurrence.
The statement must be material to the issue and give the act legal significance – The utterance imbues the act with its proper legal characterization (e.g., gift vs. payment vs. loan).

III. RATIONALE AND CHARACTERISTICS

Trustworthiness Through Spontaneity
The guiding principle behind res gestae exceptions is that a spontaneously made statement—triggered by the shock or excitement of an event—carries inherent reliability. The premise is that under such stress, a typical person does not have the opportunity to concoct a deliberate falsehood.
Close Connection to the Event
Courts look for a close temporal and contextual link between the event and the statement. Even brief intervals can destroy spontaneity if the declarant has had sufficient time to reflect and fabricate.
Exception to the Hearsay Rule
Generally, out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted are disallowed (hearsay rule). Res gestae is one of the recognized exceptions because of the element of unreflective reaction or because the words are part of the very act in dispute (thus not offered simply “for their truth,” but as part of the act itself).
Not Necessarily by the Victim
Importantly, the declarant making the spontaneous statement need not be the victim or even a participant in the crime; it can be a bystander or witness to the event, provided the same conditions of spontaneity and excitement are met.
No Fixed Time Interval
There is no strict or absolute time frame that automatically qualifies or disqualifies a statement as “spontaneous.” Courts look to the totality of circumstances—the nature of the event, the physical and mental condition of the declarant, and the interval between the occurrence and the statement—to determine spontaneity.

IV. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS AND VERBAL ACTS

Primary Purpose
- Spontaneous statements (excited utterances): Focus is on whether the declarant was under the stress of excitement from a startling event, making the statement trustworthy.
- Verbal acts: The statement’s function is to explain or characterize an equivocal act at the exact moment of its commission, giving the act a particular legal significance.
Hearsay vs. Non-Hearsay Nature
- Spontaneous statements are classic hearsay statements (out-of-court, offered for the truth), but admitted because they fall under the “res gestae” or “excited utterance” exception.
- Verbal acts are often regarded as non-hearsay because they are not introduced primarily to prove the truth of the statement but rather to show that the words accompanied and gave character to an act.

V. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

To be precise and meticulous, the courts consider the following requisites for Spontaneous Statements:

Occurrence of a startling event – Something sudden or traumatic.
Statement made soon after or during the event – Before the declarant has an opportunity for reflection.
Statement must concern the event or its immediate attending circumstances – The content of the statement must be directly related to the startling occurrence.

For Verbal Acts:

Act or transaction is equivocal and material – The act itself must be relevant to the case and ambiguous without the accompanying words.
Statement made contemporaneously with or immediately before/after the act – The timing cements the statement to the act.
Statement gives legal significance or clarifies the act – It must explain, qualify, or define the transaction’s nature.

VI. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES

Spontaneous Statement
- During a robbery, a witness exclaims, “He’s got a gun! He’s pointing it at the cashier!” made in immediate reaction to seeing the robber brandish a firearm. This excited utterance is likely admissible under res gestae.
Verbal Act
- While handing over cash, a party states, “I’m giving you this money as a gift for your birthday.” If the legal dispute later concerns whether that exchange was a loan or a gift, that verbal utterance is part of the transaction that clarifies its nature as a gift.

VII. RELEVANT PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE

Although there are numerous cases illustrating the application of res gestae, common threads run through them:

People v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75 (2005) – The Supreme Court discussed “excited utterances” and validated their admissibility when made under the stress of excitement from a startling occurrence.
People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 187725 (2012) – Confirmed that the spontaneity of the statement is key; it should be made before the declarant had the time to concoct a story.
People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 177577 (2010) – Demonstrated the principle that it is not the lapse of time alone but the continued state of excitement that qualifies the statement as spontaneous.

In these and other decisions, the Supreme Court emphasizes that it is the absence of opportunity for fabrication—rather than a strict stopwatch measure of time—that is decisive. Courts examine each situation on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances.

VIII. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS

Foundation Requirements
- When offering a spontaneous statement in evidence, be prepared to show:
  - The nature of the startling event,
  - The declarant’s continuous state of excitement,
  - The immediate or near-immediate timing of the utterance.
- For verbal acts, clearly demonstrate the equivocal nature of the act and how the statement clarifies or gives it legal character.
Avoiding Objections
- Anticipate a hearsay objection. Argue the spontaneity or demonstrate that the utterance is an integral part of the act in question (especially if it is a “verbal act” scenario).
Cross-Examination of Witnesses
- Opposing counsel may challenge the spontaneity by showing the declarant had time to reflect or had ulterior motives. Be ready to counter with specifics that the declarant was still under the stress or excitement of the event.
Documentation and Testimony
- If you rely on a witness to testify about the declarant’s statement, ensure the witness can credibly narrate the circumstances—how immediate the utterance was, how the declarant appeared emotionally, etc.

IX. SUMMARY

Definition and Scope: “Res gestae” covers two principal categories under Philippine law: Spontaneous Statements (excited utterances) and Verbal Acts (statements accompanying an equivocal act).
Legal Basis: Sections 42 and 43 of Rule 130, as revised by the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Court, govern these exceptions.
Core Requirement: Spontaneity and close connection with a startling event or the act in question are essential to ensure reliability and thus justify their admissibility.
Practical Import: “Res gestae” can be a powerful evidentiary tool in both civil and criminal cases, allowing certain out-of-court statements to be admitted despite the hearsay rule, provided the strict safeguards of immediacy, spontaneity, or contemporaneity with the act are satisfied.

KEY TAKEAWAY

Res gestae is one of the most critical hearsay exceptions for practitioners to master because of its frequent use in both criminal and civil proceedings. Courts in the Philippines rely heavily on the element of spontaneity—i.e., the declarant’s lack of time to invent a falsehood—and on the direct correlation between the statement and the event/act. Properly laying the foundation for such evidence can decisively strengthen a party’s case.