Short answer. Yes, potentially. Rule 130, Section 37 treats a prior statement as not hearsay when the declarant testifies at trial, is subject to cross-examination about it, and the statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony and offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.
What the law says
Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein
Rule 130, Section 37 — Hearsay. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules
Rule 130, Section 37 — Hearsay. Read the full provision →
What the law says
consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive
Rule 130, Section 37 — Hearsay. Read the full provision →
What counts as hearsay, and the general rule
Rule 130, Section 37 opens with hearsay's definition: "Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein." The general rule that follows is strict: "Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules." An earlier statement made outside the current proceeding ordinarily falls within that definition and that bar.
When a prior statement is treated as not hearsay at all
The same section then describes a situation where a declarant's earlier statement is not treated as hearsay in the first place: where the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and can be cross-examined about the statement, and the statement fits one of three specific categories the section lists. Bringing in a prior statement this way is not an exception carved out of the hearsay ban — the section defines the statement as falling outside hearsay entirely when these conditions are met.
The category that fits your situation
One of the three listed categories is exactly the scenario you describe: a statement "consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive." If the other side is accusing your witness of recently making up their story, an earlier statement that says the same thing, offered specifically to answer that charge, fits this category directly.
What has to line up for this to work
Several things have to be true together, not just the existence of an earlier statement. Your witness has to actually testify at the trial or hearing and be available for cross-examination about that earlier statement; the earlier statement has to be genuinely consistent with what your witness is testifying to now; and it has to be offered for the specific purpose of rebutting the claim of recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive — not simply offered on its own to bolster credibility in general.