Summary: The
uncontested declaration of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
that Monico Ligtas was a tenant negates a finding of theft beyond reasonable
doubt. Tenants having rights to the harvest cannot be deemed to have taken
their own produce.
FACTS: Ligtas
was charged with the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code. Ligtas pleaded not guilty. According to the prosecution witnesses,
Anecita Pacate was the owner of an abaca plantation.
On June 29, 2000, Cabero, the plantation's administrator,
and several men, including Cipres, went to the plantation to... harvest abaca
upon Anecita Pacate's instructions. At about 10:00 a.m., Cabero and his men
were surprised to find Ligtas harvesting abaca at the plantation. Ligtas was accompanied
by three (3) unidentified men. Allegedly, Ligtas threatened that there would be
loss of life if they... persisted in harvesting the abaca. Cabero reported the
incident to Anecita Pacate and the police. On July 3, 2000, Ligtas and Anecita
Pacate confronted each other before the Sogod Police Station. Ligtas admitted
to harvesting the abaca but claimed that he was the plantation owner.
According to Ligtas, he had been a tenant of Anecita Pacate
and her late husband, Andres Pacate since 1993. Andres Pacate installed him as
tenant of the 1.5 to two hectares of land involved in the criminal case.
Ligtas filed a Complaint before the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) of Sogod, Southern Leyte for Maintenance of
Peaceful Possession on November 21, 2000. On January 22, 2002, the DARAB
rendered the Decision ruling that Ligtas was a bona fide tenant of the land.
While records are bereft as to when the DARAB Decision was
formally offered as evidence before the trial court, records are clear that the
DARAB Decision was considered by both the trial court and Court of Appeals and
without any objection on the part of the People of the Philippines.
In the Decision dated August 16, 2006, the Regional Trial
Court held that "the prosecution was able to prove the elements of
theft[.]" Ligtas' "defense of tenancy was not supported by concrete
and substantial evidence nor was his claim of harvest sharing between him and
[Anecita Pacate] duly corroborated by any witness. "His "defense of
alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by prosecution
witnesses."
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial
court. According to it, "the burden to prove the existence of the tenancy
relationship" belonged to Ligtas. He was not able to establish all the
essential elements of a tenancy agreement.
The Court of Appeals declared that Ligtas' reliance on the
DARAB Decision "declaring him as a bonafide tenant of the land is
irrelevant in the case at bar."
ISSUE: Whether
the DARAB Decision, finding petitioner Monico Ligtas as tenant of the land
owned by private complainant Anecita Pacate is conclusive or can be taken
judicial notice of in a criminal case for theft.
HELD: The issue
of tenancy, in that whether a person is an agricultural tenant or not, is
generally a question of fact. To be precise, however, the existence of a
tenancy relationship is a legal conclusion based on facts presented
corresponding to the statutory elements of tenancy.
The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in its
assailed Decision when it held that all the essential elements of the crime of
theft were duly proven by the prosecution despite petitioner having been
pronounced a bona fide tenant of the land from which he allegedly stole. A
review of the records of the case is, thus, proper to arrive at a just and
equitable resolution.
We hold that a DARAB decision on the existence of a tenancy
relationship is conclusive and binding on courts if supported by substantial
evidence.
Generally, decisions in administrative cases are not
binding on criminal proceedings. This court has ruled in a number of cases
that:
It is indeed a fundamental principle of administrative law
that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same
act or omission. Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an
administrative prosecution, or vice versa.
One thing is administrative liability; quite another thing
is the criminal liability for the same act.
Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of
evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in
criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one
should not necessarily be binding on the other. Notably, the evidence presented
in the administrative case may not necessarily be the same evidence to be
presented in the criminal cases.
However, this case does not involve an administrative
charge stemming from the same set of facts involved in a criminal proceeding.
This is not a case where one act results in both criminal and administrative
liability. DARAB Case No. VIII-319-SL2000 involves a determination of whether
there exists a tenancy relationship between petitioner and private complainant,
while Criminal Case No. R-225 involves determination of whether petitioner
committed theft. However, the tenancy relationship is a factor in determining
whether all the elements of theft were... proven by the prosecution.
Private complainant did not appeal the DARAB's findings.
Findings of fact of administrative agencies in the exercise
of their quasi-judicial powers are entitled to respect if supported by
substantial evidence. This court is not tasked to weigh again "the evidence
submitted before the administrative body and...
to substitute its own judgment [as to] the sufficiency of
evidence."
The DARAB is the quasi-judicial tribunal that has the
primary jurisdiction to determine whether there is a tenancy relationship
between adverse parties. This court has held that "judicial determinations
[of the a DARAB] have the same binding effect as...
judgments and orders of a regular judicial body."
The DARAB, in DARAB Case No. VIII-319-SL-2000, held that
all the essential elements of a tenancy relationship were proven by petitioner.
It found that there was substantial evidence to support petitioner's claim as
tenant of the land. In rendering the Decision, the DARAB examined pleadings and
affidavits of both petitioner and private complainant. It was convinced by
petitioner's evidence, which consisted of sworn statements of petitioner's
witnesses that petitioner was installed as tenant by Andres Pacate sometime in
1993. Petitioner and Andres Pacate had an agreement to share the produce after
harvest. However, Andres Pacate had died before the first harvest.
Petitioner then gave the landowner's share to private
complainant, and had done so every harvest until he was disturbed in his
cultivation of the land on June 29, 2000.
We emphasize that after filing her Answer before the DARAB,
private complainant failed to heed the Notices sent to her and refused to
attend the scheduled hearings. It is true that trial courts are not mandated to
take judicial notice of decisions of other courts or even records of other
cases that have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same
judge.
In declaring that the DARAB's findings on the tenancy
relationship between petitioner and private complainant are immaterial to the
criminal case for theft, the Court of Appeals relied on Rollo, et al. v. Leal
Realty Centrum Co., Inc., et al. in Rollo, this court did not categorically
hold that the DARAB's findings were merely provisional and, thus, not binding
on courts.
In this case, records are bereft as to whether private
complainant appealed the DARAB Decision. Thus, it is presumed that the Decision
has long lapsed into finality.
It is also established that private complainant
participated in the initial stages of the DARAB proceedings. Therefore, the
issue of the existence of a tenancy relationship is final as between the
parties. We cannot collaterally review the DARAB's findings at this stage. The
existence of the final Decision that tenancy exists creates serious doubts as
to the guilt of the accused.
Comments
Post a Comment