Short answer. Yes, potentially. Rule 130, Section 44 allows spontaneous statements made while a startling event is happening, or immediately before or after it, under the stress of excitement it caused, to be admitted as part of the res gestae — on the reasoning that someone reacting in the heat of the moment has no real chance to fabricate what they say.
What the law says
Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto[,] under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae.
Rule 130, Section 44 — Part of the res gestae. Read the full provision →
What the law says
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.
Rule 130, Section 44 — Part of the res gestae. Read the full provision →
What 'res gestae' covers
Res gestae statements are treated as part of the event itself rather than as an ordinary out-of-court statement offered for its truth. The rule covers statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto, so a bystander's outcry naming who ran the light, made right as or right after the collision happened, fits the pattern this section describes — a reaction bound up with the event, not a considered account given later.
The spontaneity requirement
What makes the statement trustworthy enough to admit is that it was made under the stress of excitement caused by the occurrence with respect to the circumstances thereof. The closer in time and emotional intensity the statement is to the startling event, the stronger the case that the person did not have the opportunity or presence of mind to invent or shade what they were saying — which is the whole reason this kind of unsworn statement is treated differently from ordinary hearsay.
A second, related branch of the rule
Section 44 also reaches statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance. This covers a different situation — words spoken alongside an ambiguous action that only makes sense once the words explain it, such as a comment made while doing something that would otherwise be unclear. Both branches share the same idea: the statement is so closely tied to what was physically happening that it is treated as part of the event rather than as separate testimony about it.
Why this matters in an accident case
In a collision case, an eyewitness's excited statement made at the scene can matter a great deal, because eyewitnesses are not always available or willing to testify formally later, and memories fade or shift with time. A statement that qualifies as part of the res gestae under this section can preserve that immediate, unrehearsed account in a way ordinary hearsay rules would otherwise keep out of evidence entirely.
Related provisions
- Rule 130, Section 43 — Common reputation
- Rule 130, Section 45 — Records of regularly conducted business activity