Can legally-declared farmer-tenants of landholdings be charged with qualified theft by the landowners for harvesting the agricultural produce from the land they cultivate?
Or should a government prosecutor file in court and a trial court judge resolve outright a criminal case when there is an allegation that one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or a tenant?
On both queries, the Supreme Court (SC) said no.
In a decision made public on Tuesday, Jan. 16, and written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC declared: “… when a case before a judge or a prosecutor involves the implementation of the CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program), 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 DAR (Department of Agrarian Reform) for the determination of the existence of an agrarian dispute.”
The SC cited the provisions under 50-A of Republic Act No. 6657, the CARP law, as amended by RA 9700.
It also reiterated the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 62-10 which enjoins all courts and judges to observe strictly Section 50-A of RA 6657, as amended, and to refer to DAR all cases that alleged agrarian disputes for the necessary determination and certification.
The SC said that DAR, on the other hand, issued Administrative Order No. (AO) 03-11 which adopted the OCA circular and directed that the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) may only give a ruling as to two issues: (1) whether or not the cause of action of the pending case with the referring Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor is agrarian in nature, the jurisdiction of which is lodged exclusively with the DAR; or (2) whether or not a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR is a prejudicial question to the issue pending with the referring Court or Office of the Public Prosecutor.
It, however, clarified that the recommendation of the DAR is not automatically conclusive upon the courts because the courts must still assess and determine whether the recommendation is based on and supported by evidence.
The SC pointed out that while the regional trial court (RTC) has jurisdiction over criminal cases of qualified theft, in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, or the Judiciary Reorganization Act, BP 129 should be interpreted in relation to the CARP law as amended.
Thus, the SC stressed that referral to the DAR is even more imperative in criminal cases because the DAR’s findings vis-a-vis the existence of an agricultural dispute and a tenancy relationship may have an effect on the guilt or innocence of an accused.
With its declarations, the SC reminded judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and litigants to comply with the procedure laid out in the CARP law and its implementing rules to avoid unnecessary and prolonged litigation.
The SC decision ordered the dismissal of the qualified theft charges filed against tenant-farmers Roberto Bacar and his brother-in-law Michael Mercado by Atty. Vicente Tan, owner of the landholdings being tilled by the two farmers in Brookes Point, Palawan.
Case records show that on Aug. 7, 2008, Bacar and Mercado filed before the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DAR’s Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition against Tan for the reinstatement of their tenancy status.
On Oct. 8, 2008, Bacar was charged by Tan with qualified theft for allegedly casting away two sacks of copra valued at P1,400 without the knowledge of the latter. Bacar pleaded not guilty when arraigned by the RTC on Jan. 22, 2009.
On Dec. 12, 2011, the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB declared Bacar and Mercado as tenants de jure (by law) in Tan’s landholdings.
On the basis of DARAB’s ruling, Bacar asked the RTC to dismiss the qualified theft charges filed against him. The RTC denied his plea in a ruling handed down on Nov. 29,2012. The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling on Feb. 4, 2016. Bacar elevated the issue before the SC.
In the case of Mercado, Tan accused him of taking one sack of copra valued at P711 on Feb. 25, 2008. Mercado pleaded not guilty.
On Dec. 26, 2012, the RTC denied Mercado's motion to dismiss the charges. But the CA, on Jan. 20, 2017 granted Mercado’s petition as it ordered the RTC to refer the case to the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB.
When the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was denied by the CA on July 10,2017, Tan elevated the case to the SC which consolidated it to the first petition filed by Bacar.
The SC ruled: “Wherefore, the Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 226098 (filed by Bacar) is granted and the Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 233817 (filed by Tan) is denied. Roberto Bacar and Michael Mercado are acquitted of the crime of Qualified Theft defined and penalized under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.”
It said that since it was “established that both Bacar and Mercado are tenants de Jure, it is implied that they have authority to harvest the produce in Tan's landholdings.”
It also reiterated its 2015 ruling which states: “A tenant is entitled to the products of the land he or she cultivates. The landowner's share in the produce depends on the agreement between the parties. Hence, the harvesting done by the tenant is with the landowner's consent.”