Bacar vs. People

A final DARAB judgment declaring an accused a tenant de jure negates the element of taking without consent in qualified theft of farm produce because a tenant has the right to harvest, and thus the criminal case must be dismissed; moreover, when the case is alleged to be agrarian in nature and one party is a tenant, the mandatory referral to the DAR under Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657 divests the regular courts of jurisdiction.

Roberto Bacar and Michael Mercado worked as copra-makers on a coconut plantation in Brooke’s Point, Palawan, owned by Vicente Tan and his corporations. A dispute arose over their status and possession of the landholdings. In August 2008, Bacar and Mercado filed a petition for reinstatement of tenancy with the DARAB. Shortly afterward, in February 2008, Tan accused them of taking sacks of copra without his consent, leading to separate criminal charges for qualified theft. The DARAB subsequently adjudged them tenants de jure and ordered their reinstatement.

• Nature of the Charges: Two separate Informations for Qualified Theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code were filed against Bacar and Mercado for allegedly taking sacks of copra from Vicente Tan’s coconut plantation in February 2008 without his consent. The Informations alleged that both accused, as copra-makers with free access to the plantation, acted with grave abuse of confidence.

• The DARAB Tenancy Case: Prior to the filing of the criminal charges, Bacar and Mercado had initiated DARAB Case Nos. R-0407-0008 to 0010-08 against Tan and his corporations, seeking reinstatement of their tenancy status over landholdings covered by TCT Nos. 3810, 5610, and 5611.

• The DARAB Decision: On December 12, 2011, the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB declared Bacar and Mercado tenants de jure, finding all essential requisites of tenancy satisfied. The DARAB ordered Tan and his corporations to respect their rights as tenants de jure, to reinstate them to their areas of tillage, and to maintain them in peaceful possession. This Decision attained finality.

• Motions to Quash: Invoking the DARAB Decision, both accused moved to quash their respective criminal Informations on the ground that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the cases involved an agrarian dispute cognizable exclusively by the DAR. The RTC denied both motions, holding that qualified theft under Article 310 does not pertain to the implementation of CARP and is not an agrarian dispute; the taking of coconuts had nothing to do with tenurial arrangements.

• Bacar (G.R. No. 226098) — Lack of Jurisdiction: Bacar maintained that the RTC had no jurisdiction to try the qualified theft case because it involved an agrarian dispute, as evidenced by the DARAB Decision that declared him a tenant de jure. He asserted that under Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR.

• Tan (G.R. No. 233817) — RTC Jurisdiction Over Criminal Case: Tan argued that the RTC retains jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution for qualified theft. He contended that the DARAB’s declaration of tenancy does not divest the regular courts of their authority to hear and decide criminal offenses defined under the Revised Penal Code, and that the act of stealing copra is not an agrarian dispute.

• The People of the Philippines — Adoption of CA Comments: The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People, adopted its previous Comments filed in the Court of Appeals. The essence of the People’s position was that the criminal cases for qualified theft were distinct from any agrarian dispute, did not concern the implementation of the CARP, and were properly within the jurisdiction of the RTC. The status of the accused as tenants did not preclude criminal liability for taking copra without the landowner’s consent.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction to hear and decide criminal cases for Qualified Theft when the accused have been declared tenants de jure by a final DARAB Decision and the existence of an agrarian dispute is alleged.

• Jurisdiction: The RTC was divested of jurisdiction over the criminal cases. Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, mandates automatic referral of a case to the DAR when two requisites concur: (a) an allegation from any party that the case is agrarian in nature; and (b) one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant. Both requisites were present because the accused alleged the agrarian nature of the dispute and the DARAB had already adjudged them tenants de jure. The DARAB Decision gave rise to a prima facie presumption under DAR A.O. No. 03-11 that the case is agrarian in nature. Although the strict procedure for mandatory referral was not followed, the DARAB’s prior final determination rendered a further referral redundant and unnecessary. The general jurisdictional grant to the RTC under B.P. Blg. 129 must be harmonized with R.A. No. 6657 as amended; where an agrarian dispute exists, the DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction. Moreover, the DARAB’s finding that the accused are tenants de jure implies that they had the landowner’s consent to harvest, thereby negating the element of “taking without consent” essential to the crime of qualified theft. Following Ligtas v. People, the prosecution could not establish all elements of theft, warranting acquittal. The criminal cases were ordered dismissed.

• Mandatory Referral Under Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657 — A judge or prosecutor must automatically refer a pending case to the DAR for certification of whether an agrarian dispute exists when (1) either party alleges the case is agrarian in nature, and (2) one party is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant. The referral is mandatory upon concurrence of these twin requisites. (Applied here through Chailese Development Company, Inc. v. Dizon and Dayrit v. Norquillas.)

• Prima Facie Presumption of Agrarian Dispute — Under DAR Administrative Order No. 03-11, Section 8, a previous DAR determination that an agrarian dispute exists or a pending DAR action involving the same landholding creates a prima facie presumption that the case is agrarian in nature, shifting the burden of proof to the party claiming otherwise.

• Effect of Final DARAB Tenancy Determination on Criminal Theft Charges — A tenant de jure has the right to harvest the produce of the land; therefore, the harvesting is done with the landowner’s implied consent. A final DARAB Decision adjudging the accused a tenant negates the essential element of “taking without the consent of the owner” in theft or qualified theft, resulting in the failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Ligtas v. People, 766 Phil. 750, applied.)

• Primacy of Agrarian Jurisdiction Over Regular Court Jurisdiction — The jurisdiction of regular courts under B.P. Blg. 129 cannot be read in isolation; it must be read in conjunction with R.A. No. 6657 as amended. When an agrarian dispute exists, the DARAB’s special and exclusive jurisdiction prevails, divesting regular courts of cognizance even over cases that would otherwise fall within their competence, such as ejectment, recovery of possession, and criminal prosecutions for qualified theft where the crime arises from or is connected with an agrarian dispute.

• “The existence of the DARAB Decision adjudicating the issue of tenancy between petitioner and private complainant negates the existence of the element that the taking was done without the owner’s consent. The DARAB Decision implies that petitioner had legitimate authority to harvest the abaca. The prosecution, therefore, failed to establish all the elements of theft.” — This passage from Ligtas v. People, quoted with approval, forms the core of the Court’s substantive holding that tenancy negates criminal intent in cases of qualified theft of farm produce.

• “David should not be understood that jurisdiction on ejectment cases of whatever nature falls on first-level courts; it should be read and understood to provide that first-level courts have jurisdiction on ejectment cases even if the land is public in character as long as the case is not an agrarian dispute.” — The Court, quoting Dayrit v. Norquillas, underscored that the controlling factor in determining jurisdiction is the agrarian nature of the dispute, not the general classification of the action.

• “Compliance with the mandatory referral mechanism becomes even more imperative in criminal cases because a person’s liberty is at stake.” — Reinforcing the importance of strictly observing the referral procedure to safeguard the rights of the accused in agrarian-related criminal prosecutions.

• Chailese Development Company, Inc. v. Dizon, 826 Phil. 51 (2018) — Enunciated the twin requisites for mandatory referral to the DAR: allegation of agrarian nature and one party being a farmer/farmworker/tenant. The Court relied on this framework.

• Dayrit v. Norquillas, G.R. No. 201631, December 7, 2021 — Clarified that not all ejectment cases fall under first-level courts; those involving agrarian disputes must be referred to the DAR. The Court applied its reasoning to the criminal context by analogy.

• CRC 1447, Inc. v. Calbatea, G.R. No. 237102, March 4, 2020 — Upheld the dismissal of a recovery-of-possession case for being an agrarian dispute within the DARAB’s exclusive jurisdiction. Cited to reinforce that jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the controversy.

• Ligtas v. People, 766 Phil. 750 (2015) — Held that a DARAB declaration of tenancy negates the element of taking without consent in theft, leading to acquittal. Applied as the controlling precedent on the effect of a tenancy adjudication on criminal liability.

• Section 50-A, Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No. 9700 — Establishes the exclusive jurisdiction on agrarian disputes and the automatic referral mechanism. Applied to require mandatory referral and to hold that the RTC had been divested of jurisdiction.

• Article 310, Revised Penal Code — Defines qualified theft. The element of “taking without the owner’s consent” was held to be negated by the DARAB’s determination of a tenancy relationship.

• Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — The Judiciary Reorganization Act granting RTCs criminal jurisdiction. Read in harmony with R.A. No. 6657, its general grant of jurisdiction yielded to the special jurisdiction over agrarian disputes.

Associate Justices Caguioa (Chairperson), Dimaampao, and Singh concurred. Associate Justice Inting was on leave.