TL;DR

In a significant ruling, the Philippine Supreme Court acquitted two farmers, Roberto Bacar and Michael Mercado, of Qualified Theft, affirming the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) over cases involving agrarian disputes, even when criminal charges are filed. The Court emphasized that when a dispute arises from a tenancy relationship and involves agricultural land, it falls under the DAR’s primary jurisdiction, not regular courts. This decision underscores the importance of referring cases to the DAR when agrarian issues are present, ensuring that farmers’ rights are protected and specialized agrarian bodies handle land-related conflicts. The ruling clarifies that a prior DARAB decision recognizing tenancy creates a presumption of agrarian dispute, which regular courts must consider, potentially negating criminal liability in cases like theft of farm produce by tenants.

Seeds of Conflict: When Tenancy Rights Blossom into Criminal Charges

The intertwined cases of Roberto Bacar and Vicente Tan, alongside Vicente Tan and Michael Mercado, before the Supreme Court, stemmed from a land dispute rooted in agrarian relations. Bacar and Mercado, later declared tenants by the DARAB, were charged with Qualified Theft for allegedly stealing coconuts from Tan’s plantation. The central legal question emerged: Does the Regional Trial Court (RTC) have jurisdiction over these Qualified Theft cases, or should they be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR, given the established tenancy and agrarian nature of the underlying conflict? This question tested the boundaries between criminal jurisdiction and agrarian reform laws, requiring the Supreme Court to clarify the mandatory referral mechanism to the DAR in cases with agrarian dimensions.

The legal framework for resolving this jurisdictional dilemma lies in Section 50-A of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, which explicitly mandates the automatic referral of cases with agrarian elements to the DAR. This provision states,

“No court or prosecutor’s office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP… If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR…”

This legal mandate is triggered when two conditions are met: an allegation of agrarian nature and the involvement of a farmer, farmworker, or tenant. The Supreme Court, referencing precedents like Chailese Development Company, Inc. v. Dizon and Dayrit v. Norquillas, reiterated these twin requisites for mandatory referral. These cases emphasize that regular courts must defer to the DAR’s specialized expertise in agrarian matters when these conditions are present.

In the Bacar and Mercado cases, both accused argued that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to the agrarian nature of the dispute, supported by a prior DARAB decision declaring them tenants. The RTC initially denied their motions to quash, asserting its criminal jurisdiction and deeming the theft charges separate from any agrarian issue. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) diverged in its rulings. In Bacar’s case, the CA upheld the RTC, while in Mercado’s case, it ordered the RTC to refer the matter to the DARAB. This split decision highlighted the confusion and varying interpretations of the referral mechanism, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court’s intervention to provide clarity and uniformity.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, underscored that the existence of a prior DARAB decision recognizing tenancy creates a prima facie presumption of an agrarian dispute, as outlined in DAR Administrative Order No. 03-11. This administrative order details circumstances indicating an agrarian nature, including “a previous determination by the DAR…which involves the same landholding” and “existence of a tenancy relationship.” Furthermore, it explicitly includes crimes arising from agrarian disputes, such as theft of farm produce. The Court emphasized that while RTCs have general jurisdiction over criminal cases like Qualified Theft under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, this jurisdiction is qualified by R.A. No. 6657 in agrarian contexts. Citing Dayrit and CRC 1447, Inc. v. Calbatea, the Court reiterated that jurisdiction is determined not solely by the nature of the action (e.g., criminal theft) but also by the underlying issues—if intertwined with agrarian disputes, DAR jurisdiction prevails.

A crucial precedent cited was Ligtas v. People, where the Supreme Court acquitted an accused of theft based on a DARAB tenancy declaration. Ligtas established that a tenant’s right to harvest produce negates the element of “taking without the owner’s consent” in theft cases within an agrarian relationship. Applying this principle, the Court reasoned that Bacar and Mercado, as declared tenants, had an implied authority to harvest, undermining the prosecution’s case for Qualified Theft. Although the procedural referral to the DAR did not strictly precede the DARAB decision in this case, the Supreme Court deemed further referral redundant. The DARAB’s final and binding decision on tenancy and agrarian dispute was considered sufficient basis to resolve the jurisdictional issue and ultimately acquit Bacar and Mercado.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bacar v. People and Tan v. Mercado serves as a strong affirmation of agrarian justice. It reinforces the mandatory referral mechanism, prioritizing DAR’s jurisdiction in agrarian-related cases, even when criminal charges are involved. This ruling protects tenant farmers from potential harassment through criminal prosecution in land disputes, ensuring that agrarian issues are resolved within the specialized agrarian legal framework. The Court’s emphasis on procedural compliance with R.A. No. 6657 and its implementing rules aims to streamline litigation and prevent unnecessary delays, especially in cases affecting the liberty of individuals in agrarian disputes. This decision clarifies the interplay between criminal and agrarian jurisdiction, providing a more equitable legal landscape for agrarian reform beneficiaries.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ROBERTO BACAR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VICENTE TAN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 226098] and VICENTE TAN, PETITIONER, VS. MICHAEL MERCADO, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 233817], G.R. No. 226098, August 23, 2023