G.R. No. 226098 - Bacar vs. People

Two petitions for review on certiorari were raised before the Supreme Court: one by Roberto Bacar (G.R. No. 226098) and another by Vicente Tan concerning Michael Mercado’s case (G.R. No. 233817).

Both cases involve criminal charges for Qualified Theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, yet they also implicate an agrarian dispute regarding the tenancy status of Bacar and Mercado in lands owned by Tan and his related corporations.

In August 2008, Bacar (along with his brother-in-law, Michael Mercado) filed a petition before the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB seeking the reinstatement of their tenancy rights over Tan’s landholdings.

Bacar was charged with Qualified Theft on October 8, 2008, in connection with the alleged theft of two sacks of copra from a coconut plantation owned by Tan.

On December 12, 2011, the DARAB rendered a decision declaring Bacar (and Mercado) as tenants de jure, recognizing that all the essential requisites of tenancy had been satisfied and ordering their reinstatement.

Relying on the DARAB Decision, Bacar filed a Motion to Quash the criminal case on the ground that the matter, being an agrarian dispute, fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the DAR.

The RTC of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 95, denied the motion on November 29, 2012, stating that the alleged theft did not pertain to agrarian issues, a ruling which was reaffirmed on September 11, 2013, after Bacar’s petition for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeals (CA) later dismissed Bacar’s Petition for Certiorari on February 4, 2016, thereby affirming the RTC’s orders.

Bacar then elevated his case before the Supreme Court, seeking to declare the RTC’s jurisdiction as lacking and to enjoin further trial proceedings by imposing a TRO.

Mercado was charged with Qualified Theft on February 25, 2008, for the alleged theft of one sack of copra from Tan’s plantation, and he too pleaded “not guilty” at arraignment.

Owing to the same DARAB Decision that declared him a tenant de jure, Mercado filed a Motion to Quash based on the argument that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the criminal case involved an agrarian dispute.

The RTC denied Mercado’s Motion to Quash on December 26, 2012, reasoning that the theft charge did not involve issues related to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) or an agrarian dispute.

Following the denial of a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration on September 11, 2013, Mercado elevated his issue to the CA.

On January 20, 2017, the CA granted Mercado’s petition and ordered that the case be referred to the DARAB, basing its decision on Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657 (as amended by R.A. No. 9700).

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it on July 10, 2017.

Meanwhile, Vicente Tan (in his capacity relating to Mercado’s case) further petitioned for the consolidation of the two petitions and requested that the RTC continue the criminal proceedings.

Whether the RTC possessed jurisdiction to hear and decide criminal cases for Qualified Theft against Bacar and Mercado despite the existence of a DARAB decision declaring them tenants de jure.
Whether the criminal cases, by virtue of involving tenancy and agrarian interests as established by the DARAB Decision, should be automatically referred to the DAR under Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657 (as amended by R.A. No. 9700).
Whether the lower courts committed grave abuse of discretion by not fully applying the mandatory referral mechanism for agrarian disputes, especially when the dispute involves the rights of tenants in agricultural lands.