Is a police officer's testimony against a defendant hearsay?

Appellant advances the argument that the trial court erred in permitting a police officer to testify to certain statements made to him by defendant upon his arrest; that the officer's testimony was hearsay; that he did not make the statements to the officer; and that had he made them 'there would be no reason for defendant (him) not to sign the same.' It is elementary that, normally, otherwise proper admissions of a defendant made at the time of arrest fall within a long-established exception to the hearsay rule (People v. Chan Chaun, 41 Cal.App.2d 586, 107 P.2d 455, 457), and are generally admissible against the defendant as tending to prove his guilt. 'It is primarily within the province of the trial court to determine the admissibility of statements made by an accused from which an inference of guilty may be drawn and a reviewing court will not reverse a conviction because of such admission unless its inadmissibility 'appears as a matter of law from the record presented'. People v. Lehew, 209 Cal. 336, 287 Pac. 337, 340.' (People v. Chan Chaun, 41 Cal.App.2d 586, 590, 107 P.2d 455). We find nothing in the record before us to justify a finding of inadmissibility.