G.R. No. L-78214 December 5, 1988
YOLANDA CABALLES, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, HON. HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ and BIENVENIDO ABAJON, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Yolanda Caballes, acquired a 500-square-meter lot in Talisay, Cebu, which included a 60-square-meter portion. Before the sale, the private respondent, Bienvenido Abajon, had constructed his house on this portion and paid a monthly rental to the former owner, Andrea Millenes. He also cultivated part of the land, sharing the produce with Millenes on a fifty-fifty basis. After Caballes purchased the property, Abajon offered to pay rent, but the new owners demanded he vacate. When Abajon refused, a barangay confrontation failed. Subsequently, Caballes filed a criminal case for malicious mischief against Abajon, alleging he maliciously cut down banana plants on the property after being reprimanded for harvesting without her knowledge.
The trial court, pursuant to P.D. No. 1038, referred the case to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR, now DAR) for a preliminary determination of the relationship between the parties. The DAR Regional Director initially certified the case as not proper for trial, finding Abajon a bona fide tenant. On appeal, the DAR Minister reversed this, declaring the case proper for trial as the land was a residential lot. However, upon reconsideration, a new DAR Minister set aside the reversal, certifying the case as not proper for trial, finding a tenancy relationship existed and the case was designed to harass the tenant. Caballes then filed this petition for certiorari, challenging this order.

ISSUE

Whether the public respondent DAR committed grave abuse of discretion in certifying the criminal case for malicious mischief as not proper for trial based on a finding of tenancy relationship.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered the criminal case dismissed, but on a different legal ground than the existence of tenancy. The Court found it unnecessary to definitively rule on the tenancy issue to resolve the criminal liability. The legal logic centered on the elements of the crime of malicious mischief under the Revised Penal Code. For malicious mischief, the accused must deliberately cause damage to the property of another. The evidence showed Abajon planted and cultivated the banana trees himself. As the planter, he owned the crops. His possession of the land was with the consent of the previous and present owners, making his possession not illegal or in bad faith. Consequently, when he cut the banana trees, he was cutting his own property, not the property of another. Therefore, an essential element of the crime—damage to the property of another—was absent. Since no crime was committed, the certification that the case was not proper for trial was correct in result, albeit the Supreme Court reached this conclusion through direct application of penal law rather than solely through agrarian tenancy principles. The dismissal of the criminal case was thus immediately executory.