G.R. No. 226098 and G.R. No. 233817, August 23, 2023.
Roberto Bacar, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Vicente Tan, Respondents. / Vicente Tan, Petitioner, vs. Michael Mercado, Respondent.

FACTS

1. Roberto Bacar and Michael Mercado filed a petition before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) against Vicente Tan for reinstatement of their tenancy status (DARAB Case Nos. R-0407-0008 to 0010-08).
2. On October 8, 2008, Bacar was charged with Qualified Theft before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for allegedly stealing two sacks of copra from Tan’s coconut plantation on February 24, 2008. He pleaded not guilty.
3. On December 12, 2011, the DARAB rendered a Decision declaring Bacar and Mercado as tenants de jure of the landholdings owned by Tan and ordering their reinstatement.
4. Based on the DARAB Decision, Bacar filed a Motion to Quash the Information in his criminal case, arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction as the case involved an agrarian dispute falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR. The RTC denied his motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, ruling the criminal case did not pertain to CARP implementation or an agrarian dispute.
5. Bacar filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC Orders, holding that the Information for Qualified Theft involved a violation of the Revised Penal Code and neither involved an agrarian dispute nor CARP implementation.
6. Separately, Michael Mercado was also charged with Qualified Theft for allegedly stealing one sack of copra on February 25, 2008. He similarly filed a Motion to Quash based on the DARAB Decision. The RTC denied his motion.
7. Mercado elevated his case to the CA. The CA granted Mercado’s petition and ordered the RTC to refer his criminal case to the DARAB, ruling that the DARAB Decision adjudging him a tenant de jure revealed the case was agrarian in nature.
8. Bacar and Tan filed separate Petitions for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the RTC retains jurisdiction over the criminal cases for Qualified Theft against Bacar and Mercado, or if the cases involve an agrarian dispute requiring referral to the DARAB, given the DARAB Decision declaring them as tenants de jure.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED Bacar’s petition (G.R. No. 226098) and GRANTED Tan’s petition (G.R. No. 233817). The Court REVERSED the CA Decision in G.R. No. 233817 and REINSTATED the RTC Orders denying Mercado’s Motion to Quash. The RTC retains jurisdiction over the criminal cases for Qualified Theft.
The Court ruled:
1. The allegations in the Informations for Qualified Theft are controlling for jurisdiction. The crimes were charged under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code for theft of coconuts. The elements of the crime, particularly the taking of property with intent to gain and without consent, do not constitute an “agrarian dispute” as defined under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). An agrarian dispute refers to controversies relating to tenurial arrangements, including compensation, terms of transfer, and conditions of ownership. The alleged theft is a criminal act distinct from any tenurial relationship.
2. The DARAB’s declaration of tenancy status does not divest the RTC of its criminal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. The DARAB Decision, while establishing an agrarian relationship, does not automatically convert a criminal charge for theft into an agrarian dispute. The criminal liability for Qualified Theft remains separate from the agrarian rights and obligations between the parties.
3. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply. This doctrine applies when a claim requires technical expertise or is within the special competence of an administrative agency. The determination of criminal liability for Qualified Theft, involving the elements of the crime under the Revised Penal Code, is within the conventional expertise of regular courts, not the DARAB.
4. The referral procedure under Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657 (as amended) is not mandatory in this context. This provision mandates referral to the DAR for a preliminary determination of the existence of an agrarian dispute when such dispute is alleged. Here, the Informations do not allege facts constitutive of an agrarian dispute; they allege facts constitutive of the crime of Qualified Theft. The existence of a tenancy relationship does not, by itself, transform the criminal act of theft into an agrarian matter.
5. The RTC, as a court of general jurisdiction, has the authority to try and decide the criminal cases. The crimes were properly alleged to have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The RTC can proceed with the trial, where the accused can present the DARAB Decision as evidence, and the court can determine its effect on the criminal charges during the trial on the merits.