By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
ROBERTO BACAR VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VICENTE TAN, G.R. NO. 225098, VICENTE TAN VS. MICHAEL MERCADO, G.R. NO. 233817, AUGUST 23, 2023: JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS REMINDED TO REFER AGRARIAN DISPUTES TO DARAB AND MANDATORY REFERRAL IS MORE IMPERATIVE IN CRIMINAL CASES AS EXISTENCE OF AGRICULTURAL DISPUTE AND TENANCY RELATIONSHIP MAY HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE GUILT OR INNONCENCE OF THE ACCUSED
On August 7, 2008, Roberto Bacar and his brother-in-law, Michael Mercado, filed before the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB a petition against Atty. Vicente Tan for the reinstatement of their tenancy status. On October 8, 2008, Bacar was charged with Qualified Theft before the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa accusing him of stealing two (2) sacks of copra valued at Php1,400.00 without the knowledge and consent of the owner, Atty. Tan. Bacar was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
On December 12, 2011, Office of the Provincial Adjudicator if the DARAB rendered a Decision declaring Bacar and Mercado as tenants de jure of the landholdings owned by Atty. Tan. Based on the ruling, Bacar filed a Motion to Quash but was denied by the trial court. He filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals but was dismissed. With his motion for reconsideration denied, Bacar filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 226098.
Mercado was likewise charged with Qualified Theft for supposedly stealing one (1) sack of copra amounting to Php711.00 without the knowledge and consent of the owner, Atty. Tan. Like Bacar, he pleaded not guilty during arraignment. Mercado likewise filed a Motion to Quash which was also denied. But upon Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, the denial of his Motion to Quash was set aside and directed the trial court to refer the case to the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB. People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, moved for reconsideration which was denied. Hence, Atty. Tan filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court which was docketed as G.R. No. 233817.
The Supreme Court defined the issue on these consolidated cases as whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the criminal cases for Qualified Theft filed against Bacar and Mercado despite the DARAB Decision declaring them as tenants de jure of the landholdings owned by Atty. Tan.
Citing Section 50-A of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No. 9700, the Supreme Court restated that if the case involves the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), or when the case is agrarian in nature and there is an allegation that one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or a tenant, the judge or prosecutor is mandated to refer the matter to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the determination of the existence of an agrarian dispute.
Citing Chailese Development Company, Inc. vs. Dizon, G.R. No. 206788 (February 14, 2008) and Dayrit vs. Norquillas, G.R. No. 201631 (December 7, 2021), the Supreme Court restated the twin requirements for automatic referral to the DAR: (1) there is an allegation from any one or both of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature; and (2) one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant. The Supreme Court also highlighted that to implement this doctrine, it even issued OCA Circular No. 62-10 enjoining all courts to strictly observe Section 50-A of RA 6657 as amended by RA 9700 and the DAR issued A.O. No. 03-11.
The Supreme Court that it is evidently clear that the twin requisites for mandatory referral to the DAR are present in this case. “To recall, both Bacar and Mercado alleged in their Motions to Quash that, as evinced by the DARAB Decision, the case involves an agrarian dispute, and that they are tenants de jury of Tan’s landholdings. As a matter of fact, the DARAB Decision already provides a prima facie presumption that the case involves an agrarian dispute, which must be referred to the DAR.”
However, the Supreme Court also underscored that the recommendation of the DAR is not automatically conclusive upon the courts because the same is still subject to judicial recourse as provided for under Section 10 of DAR Administrative Order No. 03-11 which provides that “The recommendation of the PARO is final and non-appealable. Any party who may disagree with the recommendation of the PARO has judicial recourse by submitting his/her/its position to the referring Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor in accordance with the latter’s rules.” Hence, the Court held that the courts are not automatically bound to accept the recommendations made by the DAR as the courts must assess and determine whether the recommendation is based on and supported by evidence.
Parenthetically, the Supreme Court went on to make statutory construction that while the RTC has jurisdiction over cases of Qualified Theft under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the same should be read in conjunction with RA 6657 as amended by RA 9700. The Court made an analogy in Ejectment Cases wherein it previously ruled in Dayrit vs. Norquillas, supra, that “while 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. x x x However, if the ejectment case is found to be an agrarian dispute, the first-level courts will be divested of jurisdiction in accordance with the CARL, as amended. The controlling aspect, therefore, is the nature of the dispute (i.e., agrarian or not) and not the character of the subject land. x x x” The Court also cited its ruling in CRC 1447, Inc. vs. Calbatea, G.R. No. 237102 (March 04, 2020), wherein the case involving recovery of possession was dismissed and referred to DAR ruling that, “it is inaccurate to argue that the case simply involves an ordinary recovery of possession controversy. The subject of petitioner’s complaint undoubtedly involves the use of an agricultural land which is the subject of the implementation of the CARP. Verily, the RTC and the CA correctly found that the case falls squarely within the jurisdiction and ambit of the DARAB.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court, citing Ligtas vs. People, G.R. No. 200751 (August 17, 2015), that referral to DAR is even more imperative in criminal cases because the DAR’s findings vis-à-vis the existence of an agricultural dispute and a tenancy relationship may have an effect on the guilt or innocence of an accused. In that case, Monico Ligtas was charged with the crime of theft for allegedly stealing crops in an abaca plantation. In the meantime, ruling on a Complaint filed by Ligtas, the DARAB rendered a Decision holding that he was a bona fide tenant on the abaca plantation. Based on such DARAB Decision, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution was unable to establish all the elements of the crime of theft beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted Ligtas.
Finally, the Court acquitted Bacar and Mercado ruling that referral to the DAR would be redundant, would serve no further purpose and would prolong litigation. The Court held:
“True, the proceedings in this case did not strictly follow the procedure laid out in A.O. No. 03-11. To be clear, if A.O. No. 03-11 was strictly followed, the sequence of events would have been: (1) the case would immediately be referred to the DAR; (2) the DAR would issue a recommendation following a finding that an agrarian dispute exits; and (3) the court would review the recommendation and dismiss the case accordingly. In this case, however, the DARAB already made a determination that an agrarian dispute exists and that Bacar and Mercado are tenants de Jure even before the matter could be referred to the DAR.
Notwithstanding the fact that the procedure for mandatory referral was not strictly complied with, this Court finds that a referral to the DAR in this case would be redundant and would serve no further purpose. Undoubtedly, a referral to the DAR in this case would unnecessarily prolong litigation, especially when all submissions before this Court are sufficient for the Court to proceed and resolve the case.
Thus, after a judicious scrutiny of all the submissions before this Court, this Court resolves to dismiss the criminal cases filed against Bacar and Mercado for Qualified Theft. To reiterate, the DARAB already declared that an agrarian dispute exists because Bacar and Mercado are considered tenants de jure in the landholdings of Tan. Such findings of the DARAB deserve respect and are binding upon this Court because, as borne by the records, these findings are supported and based on substantial evidence. More compellingly, it appears that the DARAB Decision, which contains such findings, had already attained finality.”