THE Supreme Court (SC) yesterday reminded judges, lawyers, and litigants to comply with the mandatory mechanisms set under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) to avoid the unnecessary and prolonged litigation of cases.
In a decision dated August 23, 2023 but only uploaded in its website on Wednesday, the High Court emphasized that “compliance with mandatory referral mechanism becomes even more imperative in criminal cases because a person’s liberty is at stake.”
This as it granted the petition for certiorari filed by one Roberto Bacar and denied the petition for review lodged by landowner Vicente Tan.
Bacar’s petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had affirmed the decision of Branch 95 of the Puerto Princesa City Regional Trial Court denying his motion to quash the information charging him of qualified theft.
Tan’s petition, on the other hand, assailed the CA’s rulings ordering the RTC to refer to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) — Region VI-B — Office of the Provincial Adjudicator the criminal case against Bacar’s brother-in-law, Michael Mercado.
In 2008, Bacar and Mercado filed before the DARAB a petition against Tan for the reinstatement of their tenancy status.
Bacar and Mercado were subsequently charged before the RTC, in separate informations, with the crime of qualified theft for taking away copra from the coconut plantation owned by Tan.
In 2011, the DARAB declared that Bacar and Mercado were tenants de jure of the land owned by Tan, a decision which was used by the two to file their respective motions to quash the complaints that Tan filed against them. They also argued that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the issue as the cases involved an agrarian dispute.
The RTC, however, denied their motions, ruling that the criminal cases neither pertained to the implementation of the CARP nor involved an agrarian dispute.
Bacar and Mercado filed separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition with the CA.
In a 2016 decision, the appellate court denied Bacar’s petition and affirmed the RTC’s denial of his motion to quash.
However, in a separate decision in 2017, the CA granted Mercado’s petition and ordered the RTC to refer the case to the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB, prompting the parties to file their respective petitions before the SC.
In its ruling, the High Court held that while the RTC has jurisdiction over the criminal cases of qualified theft in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, this should be interpreted in relation to CARP.
It cited the 2015 case of Ligtas vs People of the Philippines where it ruled that the DARAB’s declaration that an accused is a tenant may negate the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the crime of theft because “tenants, having rights to the harvest, cannot be deemed to have taken their own produce.”
“Clearly, referral to the Department of Agrarian Reform 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,” the SC ruling penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan said.
It added that in the instant case, the requirements for mandatory referral to the DAR have been satisfied.
Both Bacar and Mercado alleged in their respective motions to quash that, as evinced by the DARAB decision, their cases involved an agrarian dispute, and that they are tenants de jure of Tan’s landholdings.
The SC agreed, explaining that the DARAB decision provides prima facie evidence that the case involves an agrarian dispute, which must be referred to the DAR.
However, it noted that the proceedings in this case did not strictly follow the procedure under Administrative Order 03-11, namely, the case would immediately be referred to the DAR, the DAR would issue a recommendation following a finding that an agrarian dispute exists, and the court would review the recommendation and dismiss the case accordingly.
Instead, it said 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.
With this, the SC ruled that referring the case to the DAR would be redundant and would serve no further purpose.
“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,” it added.
The SC thus resolved to dismiss the criminal cases for qualified theft filed against Bacar and Mercado, holding that the DARAB’s findings that both are tenants de jure in Tan’s landholdings are supported and based on substantial evidence.
“As tenants de jure, Bacar and Mercado have authority to harvest the produce in Tan’s landholdings,” it added.
Concurring with the ruling were Senior Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, and Associate Justices Japar Dimaampao and Maria Filomina Singh.
