Res gestae vs admission against interest | The Manila Times

Dear PAO,
While hanging out outside our house, I overheard our neighbors fighting. A few minutes later, I saw the wife rushing towards me, and asked for help, saying: "Kuya, tulungan n'yo po ako. Nasaksak ko asawa ko. Di ko sinasadya (I stabbed my husband. It was an accident)." Without hesitation, I proceeded to extend help. We brought her husband to the hospital. However, he was later declared dead on arrival. During trial, where the wife stood accused of Parricide, her statement was not examined as res gestae but rather as an admission against interest. What do these terms mean, and how are they different?
Miguel

Dear Miguel,
"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." (Section 44, Rule 130, Rules of Court)

Relative thereto, in the recent case of People vs. Gianne Carla Thanaraj, GR No. 262944, July 29, 2024, penned by Associate Justice Jhosef Y. Lopez, the Court held that the res gestae rule applies when the statement was made by the victim himself or herself. Where the statement was made by the alleged perpetrator of the crime, it may be considered as either declaration against interest or admission against interest, thus:
"Yet, in order for a statement to be considered part of res gestae, the following elements must concur: (a) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (b) the statement was made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (c) the statement concerns the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.
"In People vs. Loma, this Court cited instances where the res gestae rule was applied. Notably, in all of these, the victim of the crime or incident is the one who testified leading to the rule's application x x x
"In contrast, the case at bar presents a different situation where the declarant, the accused-appellant herself, is the assailant, and not the victim. More, she took the witness stand and was subjected to cross examination. Thus, the res gestae rule does not apply. x x x

"As accused-appellant took the witness stand, her statements were subjected to scrutiny as Mervin's perpetrator. In light of this, her statements to Jimar must be examined under either declaration against interest or admission against interest.
"In Lazaro vs. Agustin, this Court [held that] declaration against interest... are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness... As accused-appellant herself was available as a witness to testify regarding her utterances and actually took said witness stand, her statements cannot be classified as a declaration against interest. Thus, They must be examined under the rule of admission against interest.

"An admission against interest is governed by Rule 130, Section 27 of the Rules of Court stating that an act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant facts may be given in evidence against him or her. To be admissible, an admission must (a) involve matters of fact, and not of law; (b) be categorical and definite; (c) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and (d) be adverse to the admitter's interest, otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible."
Applying the aforementioned decision to your case, it is clear that statements made by the wife is not part of res gestae because she was not the victim, but rather the accused in the crime. Such statement may be admissible as admission against her interest provided that the elements mentioned above are present.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.