When Agrarian Disputes Trump Criminal Cases: The Bacar Doctrine on Automatic Referral

The Supreme Court recently settled a significant question: can a landowner file criminal charges for qualified theft against a tenant who has already been declared a tenant de jure by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)? In Bacar v. People (G.R. Nos. 226098 and 233817, August 23, 2023), the Court ruled that when an agrarian dispute exists, criminal cases must be referred to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) — and may even be dismissed entirely.

This decision protects tenant farmers from criminal prosecution when they have legitimate rights to harvest the land they till.

The Facts of the Case

Roberto Bacar and Michael Mercado were copra-makers in a coconut plantation owned by Vicente Tan in Palawan. In 2008, Tan filed criminal complaints for qualified theft against both men, alleging they stole sacks of copra from his plantation.

Meanwhile, Bacar and Mercado had filed a separate case before the DARAB seeking reinstatement as tenants. In December 2011, the DARAB ruled in their favor, declaring them tenants de jure over the landholdings.

Armed with this DARAB decision, both men moved to quash the criminal informations against them, arguing that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacked jurisdiction because their cases involved an agrarian dispute. The RTC denied their motions, and the Court of Appeals (CA) split — affirming the denial in Bacar's case but ordering referral to the DAR in Mercado's case.

The Legal Framework: Section 50-A of RA 6657

The core issue was the interpretation of Section 50-A of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by RA 9700. This provision states that no court or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

More importantly, it mandates that when a party alleges the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the judge or prosecutor must automatically refer the case to the DAR. The DAR then determines and certifies within fifteen days whether an agrarian dispute exists.

The Twin Requisites for Automatic Referral

Citing Chailese Development Company, Inc. v. Dizon, the Court identified two requisites for automatic referral to the DAR:

1. There is an allegation from any party that the case is agrarian in nature; and
2. One of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant.

Both requisites were present in this case. Bacar and Mercado alleged the cases were agrarian in nature, and the DARAB had already declared them tenants de jure. The Court found that the DARAB decision provided a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists.

Why the Criminal Cases Were Dismissed

The Court acknowledged that the RTC generally has jurisdiction over qualified theft under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. However, it emphasized that this law cannot be read in isolation — it must be read together with RA 6657, as amended.

The Court also cited Ligtas v. People, a similar case where the DARAB's declaration that an accused was a tenant negated the finding of guilt for theft. As the Court explained: "Tenants having rights to the harvest cannot be deemed to have taken their own produce."

Since Bacar and Mercado were declared tenants de jure, they had authority to harvest the produce. This negated the element of taking without the owner's consent — an essential element of theft. The Court therefore acquitted both men.

Practical Takeaways

• Automatic referral is mandatory. When a party alleges a case is agrarian in nature and one party is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, judges and prosecutors must refer the case to the DAR — they have no discretion to refuse.
• A prior DARAB decision is powerful evidence. If the DARAB has already declared someone a tenant de jure, this creates a presumption that an agrarian dispute exists.
• Criminal charges may be dismissed. A valid tenancy relationship can negate the element of unlawful taking in theft or qualified theft cases involving farm produce.
• Follow the proper procedure. The Court reminded litigants and courts to strictly comply with the referral mechanism under RA 6657 to avoid unnecessary and prolonged litigation.
• Judicial recourse remains available. The DAR's determination is not automatically conclusive; courts must still assess whether the DAR's recommendation is supported by evidence.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.