Reason why qualified theft will fail if agrarian dispute or tenancy is established between the parties

Dear PAO,

I had an arrangement with Lino that I will till his land and the harvest will be divided between us. This has been our setup for a decade until we had a dispute pertaining to the division of the harvest, which eventually led to his demand for me to vacate the property. When I did not heed his desire, he threatened to file a criminal case for qualified theft against me when I harvested the agricultural products from the land. One official of our barangay told me not to worry because the case will not prosper. According to him, we have an agrarian dispute as there exists a tenancy relationship between me and Lino. Assuming my concern is an agrarian or tenancy dispute, may I know the reason why the qualified theft will not prosper?
Wendel

Dear Wendel,

An agrarian dispute appears to be present based on the facts you mentioned in your letter. In Dillena vs. Alcaraz, et al., GR 204045, Dec. 14, 2017, through its ponente, Justice Mariano del Castillo, the Supreme Court defined an agrarian dispute as:

“An agrarian dispute is defined as any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farm worker’s associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.”

The existence of an agrarian dispute between you and Lino would result in the referral of the qualified theft case pending before the court or the office of the prosecutor to the Department of Agrarian Reform. This is in consonance with Section 50-A of Republic Act (RA) 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998), as amended:

“No court or prosecutor’s office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: xxx”

Further, the elements of Qualified Theft are not complete if tenancy exists between the complainant and the accused. This was explained in Bacar vs. People of the Philippines and Tan, GR 226098, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, stated that:

“These considered, the criminal cases against Bacar and Mercado for Qualified Theft must be dismissed. To be sure, the essential elements of Qualified Theft are: (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the said property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against person, or force upon things; and ( 6) the taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence. However, as it is established that both Bacar and Mercado are tenants de Jure, it is implied that they have authority to harvest the produce in Tan’s landholdings. To echo the pronouncements in Ligtas: x x x [A] tenant is entitled to the products of the land he or she cultivates. The landowner’s share in the produce depends on the agreement between the parties. Hence, the harvesting done by the tenant is with the landowner’s consent.

“The existence of the DARAB Decision adjudicating the issue of tenancy between petitioner and private complainant negates the existence of the element that the taking was done without the owner’s consent. The DARAB Decision implies that petitioner had legitimate authority to harvest the abaca. The prosecution, therefore, failed to establish all the elements of theft.”

Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, the existence of a tenancy relationship between you and Lino would negate qualified theft as the element of taking without the consent of the owner is absent. It is implied in tenancy that you have the authority to harvest the agricultural products of Lino’s land. Otherwise stated, you, as the tenant, is entitled to the products of the land you cultivate.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]