PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v.

HEROFIL
OLARTE Y NAMUAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

March 11, 2019 . G.R. No. 233209

FACTS: the accused Herofil N. Olarte was separately charged for illegal or
unauthorized possession of a hand grenade and an unlicensed pistol (later found
to be a replica).

Police members of Task Force "Boy Solo," a team formed in response to reports
that a lone gunman was believed to be responsible for several robbery incidents
at Pabayo and Chavez Streets in Cagayan de Oro City.

During their watch, they noticed a man walking towards a branch of LBC
Express, Inc. (LBC), a commercial establishment. His features resembled "Boy
Solo" whose image was shown in closed circuit television (CCTV) footages of
past robberies in the area. As "Boy Solo" was about to enter the establishment,
he pulled out a firearm. 12 This prompted PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar to
immediately run towards the suspect. 13 "Boy Solo," however, noticed the police
officers running towards him so he ran away.

Boy Solo's" companions – Randy P. Tandoy, Dexter D. Caracho and Rodel B.

Rubilla,15 acting as his lookouts, also fled from their posts. They all boarded a
Cugman Liner, a public utility jeepney heading towards the Cogon
Market.16 Eventually, accused-appellant was arrested near Ororama Superstore
in Cogon after a chase by PO2 Intud and PO2 Monilar. His three companions
were caught in a follow-up operation.17 searched accused-appellant's person and
recovered a .25 caliber pistol replica, a fragmentation grenade with an M204A2
fuse assembly, a flathead screwdriver, and a transparent heat-sealed plastic
sachet containing a white crystalline substance believed to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride. RTC found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of illegal possession of a hand grenade, CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE WARRANTLESS ARREST IS VALID AND THE HAND

GRENADE SEIZED FROM ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE;

RULING: Yes, the hand grenade seized from the accused is admissible in evidence.
Object evidence is classified into: (a) actual,
physical or "autoptic"103 evidence: those which have a direct relation or part
in the fact or incident sought to be proven and those brought to the court for
personal examination by the presiding magistrate; and (b) demonstrative
evidence: those which represent  the actual or physical object (or event in the
case of pictures or videos) being offered to support or draw an inference or to
aid in comprehending the verbal testimony of a witness. 104 Further, actual
evidence is subdivided into three categories: (a) those that have readily
identifiable marks (unique objects); (b) those that are made readily
identifiable (objects made  unique) and (c) those with no identifying
marks (non-unique objects).

In the case at hand, the chain of custody rule does not apply to an undetonated
grenade (an object made unique), for it is not amorphous and its form is
relatively resistant to change. A witness of the prosecution need only identify the
hand grenade, a structured object, based on personal knowledge that the same
contraband or article is what it purports to be—that it came from the person of
accused-appellant. Even assuming arguendo that the chain of custody rule
applies to dispel supposed doubts as to the grenade's existence and source, the
integrity and evidentiary value of the explosive had been sufficiently established
by the prosecution. As aptly observed by the CA:

The factual finding of the lower courts clearly shows that the source and
existence of the subject grenade were authenticated by the prosecution's witness
to be the very same explosive recovered from accused-appellant. SPO2 Radaza
even testified that he saw PO2 Intud write his initials "RMI2" on the masking
tape used to wrap the grenade and that the same initials were covered by
another masking tape.119 This makes accused-appellant's claim, that the
apparent absence of the masking tape wrapping the hand grenade bearing the
inscription "RMI2" makes "very doubtful" the corpus delicti,120 an exercise in
futility.

The Court also deems noteworthy that accused-appellant never presented any

evidence which would effectively taint PO2 Intud's or any other prosecution
witnesses' credibility with reasonable doubt. Bare and unsubstantiated
allegations of ill motive or impropriety 121 have no probative value and cannot
(and will not) take the place of evidence. 122 In this instance, the presumption
that the prosecution's witnesses have been regularly performing their official
duty should be upheld absent any clear and convincing evidence of ill motive. 123

the Court DISMISSES the appeal of Herofil N. Olarte and AFFIRMS the April 6,

2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals
 Tranquilino Agbayani, v. Lupa Realty Holding Corporation
June 10, 2019 . G.R. No. 201193

FACTS: The property subject is a 91,899-square meter parcel of land, situated

in Barrio Sinungan, Sta. Ana, Cagayan, originally registered under OCT No. P-
46041 in the name of x x x Tranquilino Agbayani (Tranquilino) who was by then
already residing in America, filed a Complaint for Reivindicacion, Cancellation of
Title and Document with Damages against Lupa Realty Holding Corporation
(Lupa Realty), through his brother, Kennedy Agbayani, and his nephew,
Vernold Malapira (Vernold).  sometime in April 1999, [Vernold] went to the
Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Sta. Ana, Cagayan to pay the real estate
taxes on the subject property, but was told that Lupa Realty was already the
new owner thereof and that the tax declaration had already been transferred to
its name. 

Tranquilino denied having executed said Deed of Absolute Sale, insisting that his
signature thereon must be a forgery because he was in America on 29 October
1997. Accordingly, [he] prayed for the cancellation of Lupa Realty's TCT No. T-
109129 and the reinstatement of OCT No. P-46041 in his name, plus damages.

Lupa Realty countered that contrary to the allegation of Tranquilino that he

never sold the subject property, he sold the same to his brother, Nonito
Agbayani (Nonito), as shown by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale executed on
21 January 1992. In turn, Nonito sold the subject property to Moriel Urdas
(Moriel) in a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale, dated 30 May 1997. According to
Lupa Realty, it acquired the subject property not from Tranquilino but from
Moriel by way of a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale, dated 29 October 1997.

Lupa Realty further insisted that it was an innocent purchaser for value and in
good faith. Lupa Realty explained that it was Moriel and his mother who
registered the sale in the Registry of Deeds, as shown by the Affidavit executed
by Moriel's mother. According to Lupa Realty, it had no idea that Moriel and his
mother had used a falsified deed of sale with Tranquilino's forged signature in
registering the sale. Thus, Lupa Realty filed a third-party complaint against
Moriel to enforce the latter's warranty of a valid title and peaceful possession
against the claims of third persons.

Moriel denied having caused the registration of the sale to Lupa Realty, and
denied having prepared the falsified deed of sale that was used in transferring
the title to Lupa Realty. Moriel insisted that contrary to Lupa Realty's assertions,
it was actually the latter's personnel who registered the sale.

The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner. While the CA ruled in favor of the dismissal
of Tranquilino's complaint based on the lack of evidence regarding his forgery
allegation and its postulation that his action for declaration of nullity of the 1997
DAS is not the direct proceeding required by law to attack a Torrens certificate of
title since it cannot be collaterally attacked.1

Tranquilino filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA 

ISSUE: 1. whether or not the admission by the petitioner during the pre trial
proceedings qualifies as a judicial admission.

RULING: Yes,

The admission by Nonito's counsel during the pre-trial proceedings before the
RTC that there was no sale between Tranquilino and Nonito qualifies as a judicial
admission because the statement is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement of
a party's attorney during judicial proceedings in open court about a concrete or
essential fact within that party's peculiar knowledge. Since such statement is a
judicial admission, it does not require proof according to Section 4, Rule 129 of
the Rules of Court, which provides: cralawred

SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, verbal or written, made by a party

in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

Moreover, there was no palpable mistake on the part of Nonito's counsel in

making the admission because in the offer of Nonito's testimony on December 2,
2008, he stated that "the land was the property in suit was never sold to him
[Nonito] by his brother Tranquilino Agbayani." 53 That is not all. The admission by
Nonito himself, on cross-examination by Tranquilino's counsel, that Tranquilino
was in the United States at the time of the purported transaction 54 supports the
statement of the counsel of Nonito that there was no sale between Tranquilino
and Nonito.

Since there is judicial admission that there was no sale of the subject land
between Tranquilino and Nonito, affirmed anew during oral testimony by Nonito
himself, then there is no question that the 1992 DAS is void. The three requisites
of a simulated contract are existent. There is a deliberate declaration that
Tranquilino sold the subject land to Nonito, which is contrary to their will because
there was no sale between them. The agreement appears on its face to be a
valid act. The purpose is to deceive third persons into believing that there was
such a sale between them.

Consequently, the CA committed egregious error when it made the finding that
the 1992 DAS is valid. Given that Tranquilino did not sell the subject land to
Nonito, it could not have been sold by Nonito to Moriel and Moriel could not, in
turn, have sold it to Lupa Realty.
Lupa Realty's argument that Tranquilino's action for declaration of nullity of the
1997 DAS is not the direct proceeding required by law to attack a Torrens
certificate of title since it cannot be collaterally attacked, upheld by the CA, is
untenable.

In deference to the conclusiveness and indefeasibility of Torrens titles, a

certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack pursuant to Section 48
of PD 1529.

the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals

are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISTINA M

HERNANDEZ, accused-appellant.

July 30, 1996 . G.R. No. 108028

FACTS: Cristina Hernandez was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment committed in
large scale in violating of Article 38 (a) and (b) in relation to Article 13 (b) and (c) of the New
Labor Code. The said accused representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist
and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and
unlawfully for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to the private
complainants But contrary to appellant's promise, complainants-witnesses were unable to
leave for abroad. They demanded for the return of their money but to no avail. Appellant's
unfulfilled promise of employment and her refusal to return the money that had been paid by
way of placement and passport fees, triggered the filing of the complaint. The accused
denied the charges. Furthermore she claimed that she never met any of the complainants
nor did she ever recruit any of them. The lower court finds the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment, committed in large scale, as defined in
Article 38(a) & (b) of Presidential Decree No. 1412,

ISSUE: 1. whether or not the admission by the petitioner during the pre trial
proceedings qualifies as a judicial admission.
RULING: Yes,

The admission by Nonito's counsel during the pre-trial proceedings before the
RTC that there was no sale between Tranquilino and Nonito qualifies as a judicial
admission because the statement is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement of
a party's attorney during judicial proceedings in open court about a concrete or
essential fact within that party's peculiar knowledge. Since such statement is a
judicial admission, it does not require proof according to Section 4, Rule 129 of
the Rules of Court, which provides: cralawred

SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. - An admission, verbal or written, made by a party

in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The
admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

Moreover, there was no palpable mistake on the part of Nonito's counsel in

making the admission because in the offer of Nonito's testimony on December 2,
2008, he stated that "the land was the property in suit was never sold to him
[Nonito] by his brother Tranquilino Agbayani." 53 That is not all. The admission by
Nonito himself, on cross-examination by Tranquilino's counsel, that Tranquilino
was in the United States at the time of the purported transaction 54 supports the
statement of the counsel of Nonito that there was no sale between Tranquilino
and Nonito.

Since there is judicial admission that there was no sale of the subject land
between Tranquilino and Nonito, affirmed anew during oral testimony by Nonito
himself, then there is no question that the 1992 DAS is void. The three requisites
of a simulated contract are existent. There is a deliberate declaration that
Tranquilino sold the subject land to Nonito, which is contrary to their will because
there was no sale between them. The agreement appears on its face to be a
valid act. The purpose is to deceive third persons into believing that there was
such a sale between them.

Consequently, the CA committed egregious error when it made the finding that
the 1992 DAS is valid. Given that Tranquilino did not sell the subject land to
Nonito, it could not have been sold by Nonito to Moriel and Moriel could not, in
turn, have sold it to Lupa Realty.

Lupa Realty's argument that Tranquilino's action for declaration of nullity of the
1997 DAS is not the direct proceeding required by law to attack a Torrens
certificate of title since it cannot be collaterally attacked, upheld by the CA, is
untenable.

In deference to the conclusiveness and indefeasibility of Torrens titles, a

certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack pursuant to Section 48
of PD 1529.

appellant's conviction of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is hereby AFFIRMED