GR 200751 Ligtas V People
GR 200751 Ligtas V People
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
"Bakit niya babawiin ang aking saka?" tanong ni Tata Selo. "Dinaya ko na ba
siya sa partihan? Tinuso ko na ba siya? Siya ang may-ari ng lupa at kasama
lang niya ako. Hindi ba't kaya maraming nagagalit sa akin ay dahil sa ayaw
kong magpamigay ng kahit isang pinangko kung anihan?"
Hindi pa rin umaalis sa harap ng istaked si Tata Selo. Nakahawak pa rin siya
sa rehas. Nakatingin siya sa labas ngunit wala siyang sino mang tinitingnan.
"Binabawi po niya ang aking saka," sumbong ni Tata Selo. "Saan papo ako
pupunta kung wala na akong saka?"
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
assailing the Court of Appeals Decision[2] dated March 16, 2010 and the Resolution[3]
dated February 2, 2012.[4] The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision[5] of the
Regional Trial Court finding Monico Ligtas (Ligtas) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
theft.[6]
Ligtas was charged with the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
[7] The Information provides:
That on or about the 29th day of June 2000 at Sitio Lamak, Barangay San
Juan, Municipality of Sogod, Province of Southern Leyte, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
with intent of gain, entered into the abaca plantation belonging to one
Anecita Pacate, and once inside the plantation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously harvested 1,000 kilos of abaca fibers, valued at
Php29,000.00 at Php29.00 per kilo, without the consent of said owner,
Anecita Pacate, to her damage and prejudice in the aforestated amount of
Twenty Nine Thousand Pesos (Php29,000.00), Philippine currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
The prosecution presented five (5) witnesses during trial: Efren Cabero (Cabero),
Modesto Cipres (Cipres), Anecita Pacate, SPO2 Enrique Villaruel, and Ernesto Pacate.
[10]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 1/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
According to the prosecution witnesses, Anecita Pacate was the owner of an abaca
plantation situated at Sitio Lamak, Barangay San Juan, Sogod, Southern Leyte. 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.[11]
On July 2, 2000, Cabero and Cipres went back to the plantation and conducted a
survey on the condition of the plantation. They found that 1,000 kilos of abaca, valued
at P28.00 per kilo, were harvested by Ligtas.[12]
On July 3, 2000, Ligtas and Anecita Pacate confronted each other before the Sogod
Police Station.[13] Ligtas admitted to harvesting the abaca but claimed that he was the
plantation owner.[14]
The defense presented three (3) witnesses during trial: Ligtas; Pablo Palo, his
neighbor; and Delia Ligtas, his wife.[15] According to Ligtas, he had been a tenant of
Anecita Pacate and her late husband, Andres Pacate since 1993.[16] Andres Pacate
installed him as tenant of the 1.5 to two hectares of land involved in the criminal case.
[17]
Ligtas allegedly "made his first harvest in 1997."[18] He then gave Anecita Pacate her
share to the harvest.[19] However, he could not remember the exact amount anymore.
[20] Previously, Ligtas and Pablo Palo were workers in another land, around 15
Ligtas alleged that on June 28, 2000, Anecita Pacate sent workers to harvest abaca
from the land he cultivated. Ligtas prevented the men from harvesting the abaca since
he was the rightful tenant of the land.[22]
Furthermore, Ligtas denied harvesting abaca at the plantation on June 29, 2000. He
claimed that he was with Cabero and Cipres attending a barangay fiesta at Sitio
Hubasan, San Juan, Sogod, Southern Leyte, when the alleged harvesting happened.[23]
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[27] and Court of Appeals[28] and without any
objection on the part of the People of the Philippines.[29]
In the Decision dated August 16, 2006, the Regional Trial Court held that "the
prosecution was able to prove the elements of theft[.]"[30] 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."[31] His
"defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification ... by prosecution
witnesses."[32]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 2/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
1. To suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, nine (9) months
and ten (10) days as minimum to eight (8) years and eight (8) months
as maximum;
SO ORDERED.[33]
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court.[34] According to it, "the
burden to prove the existence of the tenancy relationship"[35] belonged to Ligtas. He
was not able to establish all the essential elements of a tenancy agreement.[36]
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":[37]
As to the ownership of the land, the Court of Appeals held that Ligtas had taken
conflicting positions. While he claimed to be a legitimate tenant, Ligtas also assailed
Anecita Pacate's title over the land. Under Rule 131, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a
tenant cannot deny the title of his or her landlord at the time of the commencement of
the tenancy relation.[39]
More importantly, the Court of Appeals ruled that Ligtas committed theft by harvesting
abaca from Anecita Pacate's plantation.[41] Ligtas had constructive possession of the
subject of the theft without the owner's consent.[42] "The subject of the crime need not
be carried away or actually taken out from the land in order to consummate the crime
of theft."[43]
Furthermore, Ligtas' argument that the abaca did not constitute as personal property
under the meaning of Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code was erroneous.[44]
Following the definition of personal property, the abaca hemp was "capable of
appropriation [and] [could] be sold and carried away from one place to another."[45]
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that about 1,000 kilos of abaca
were already harvested.[46] Hence, all the elements of theft under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code were sufficiently established by the prosecution.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Ligtas' defense of alibi could not excuse him from
criminal liability.[47] His alibi was doubtfully established. "[W]here an accused's alibi is
established only by himself, his relatives and friends, his denial of culpability should be
accorded the strictest scrutiny."[48]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 3/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Ligtas' attack on the credibility of the witnesses did not prosper.[49] He failed to show
that the case was initiated only through Anecita Pacate's quest for revenge or to ensure
that Ligtas would be evicted from the land.[50]
The Court of Appeals dismissed Ligtas' appeal and affirmed the trial court's Decision
finding Ligtas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of theft under Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code.[51] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
SO ORDERED.[52]
Ligtas filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[53] which the Court of Appeals denied on
February 2, 2012.[54]
II
On April 4, 2012, Ligtas filed this Petition assailing the Court of Appeals Decision and
Resolution.[55] This court required People of the Philippines to file its Comment on the
Petition within 10 days from notice.[56]
First, whether questions of fact may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court;
Second, whether the DARAB Decision, finding petitioner Monico Ligtas as tenant of the
land owned by private complainant Anecita Pacate and located at Sitio Lamak,
Barangay San Juan, Sogod, Southern Leyte is conclusive or can be taken judicial notice
of in a criminal case for theft; and
Third, whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it upheld the
conviction of petitioner Monico Ligtas for theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code.
III
Petitioner argues that the findings of fact of both the trial court and Court of Appeals
must be revisited for being "conclusions without citation of specific evidence on record
and premised on the supposed absence of evidence on the claim of petitioner [as]
tenant."[57]
Only questions of law are allowed in a petition for review under Rule 45[58] of the Rules
of Court.[59] Factual findings of the Regional Trial Court are conclusive and binding on
this court when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[60] This court has differentiated
between a question of law and question of fact:
A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct
application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the
issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact
exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering
mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 4/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Petitioner admits that the Petition raises substantially factual issues that are beyond the
scope of the Rule he seeks redress from.[62] However, there are exceptions to the rule
that only questions of law should be the subject of a petition for review under Rule 45:
This court has held before that a re-examination of the facts of the case is justified
"when certain material facts and circumstances had been overlooked by the trial court
which, if taken into account, would alter the result of the case in that they would
introduce an element of reasonable doubt which would entitle the accused to acquittal."
[64]
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.[67] A review of the records of the case is, thus, proper to
arrive at a just and equitable resolution.
IV
Petitioner claims that private complainant's filing of criminal charges was motivated by
ill will and revenge.[68] The charges were designed to remove petitioner from the land
he has legitimately occupied as tenant.[69] Telling is the fact that petitioner filed his
Complaint before the DARAB on November 21, 2000, while the Information for Theft
was filed on December 8, 2000.[70]
Petitioner argues that he has sufficiently established his status as private complainant's
tenant.[71] The DARAB Decision is entitled to respect, even finality, as the Department
of Agrarian Reform is the administrative agency vested with primary jurisdiction and
has acquired expertise on matters relating to tenancy relationship.[72]
The findings of the DARAB were also supported by substantial evidence.[73] To require
petitioner to prove tenancy relationship through evidence other than the DARAB
Decision and the testimonies of the witnesses is absurd and goes beyond the required
quantum of evidence, which is substantial evidence.[74]
Also, according to petitioner, the DARAB Decision has attained finality since private
complainant did not file an appeal. The DARAB's finding as to the parties' tenancy
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 5/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
On the other hand, respondent argues that the Court of Appeals correctly disregarded
the DARAB Decision.[76] The trial court could not have taken judicial notice of the
DARAB Decision:
....
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-SL-2000 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.
In fine, this board found plaintiff a bonafide tenant of the land in question
and as such is entitled to a security of tenure, in which case he shall not be
dispossessed of his holdings by the landowner except for any of the causes
provided by law and only after the same has been proved before, and the
dispossession is authorized by the Court and in the judgment that is final
and executory[.][83] (Citations omitted)
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 6/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
1. The respondent and all other persons acting for and in her behalf to
maintain plaintiff in the peaceful possession of the land in dispute;
Other relief sought are hereby ordered dismissed for lack of evidence.
No cost.
SO DECIDED.[84]
The DARAB is the quasi-judicial tribunal that has the primary jurisdiction to determine
whether there is a tenancy relationship between adverse parties.[87] 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."[88] Disputes under the jurisdiction of
the DARAB include controversies relating to:
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 7/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
In Encinas v. Agustin, Jr.,[94] this court clarified that res judicata applies only to
decisions rendered by agencies in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to
purely administrative proceedings:
The CA was correct in ruling that the doctrine of res judicata applies only to
judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of
administrative powers. Administrative powers here refer to those purely
administrative in nature, as opposed to administrative proceedings that take
on a quasi-judicial character.
We find it necessary to clarify the two concepts of res judicata: bar by prior judgment
and conclusiveness of judgment. In Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and
Livestock Association, Inc., et al.,[96] this court discussed and differentiated the two
concepts of res judicata:
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the
judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred,
there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this
instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the
second action.
But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no
identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those
matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to
matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known
as "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact or matter
in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of
an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the
merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be
litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim,
demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 8/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new
action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the
disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there
must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject
matter, and causes of action. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and
causes of action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as
a "bar by prior judgment" would apply. If as between the two cases, only
identity of parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res
judicata as "conclusiveness of judgment" applies.[97] (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)
In Martillano v. Court of Appeals,[98] the DARAB Decision finding for the existence of a
tenancy relationship between the parties was declared by this court as conclusive on
the parties.[99] As in this case, the DARAB Decision[100] in Martillano attained finality
when the landowner did not appeal the Decision.[101] This court ruled that the doctrine
of res judicata applies:
In the instant case, the determination of the DARAB in DARAB Case No.
062-Bul '89, there being no appeal interposed therefrom, attained finality.
Accordingly, the matter regarding the status of Martillano as a tenant farmer
and the validity of the CLT and Emancipation Patents issued in his favor are
settled and no longer open to doubt and controversy.
....
We recall that DARAB Case 062-Bul '89 was for the cancellation of
petitioner's CLT and Emancipation patents. The same effect is sought with
the institution of DARAB Case No. 512-Bul '94, which is an action to
withdraw and/or cancel administratively the CLT and Emancipation Patents
issued to petitioner. Considering that DARAB Case 062-Bul '89 has attained
finality prior to the filing of DARAB Case No. 512-Bul '94, no strenuous legal
interpretation is necessary to understand that the issues raised in the prior
case, i.e., DARAB Case No. 062-Bul '89, which have been resolved with
finality, may not be litigated anew.
facts on which the decision was predicated, continue to be the facts of the
case before the court. Hence, the binding effect and enforceability of that
dictum can no longer be resurrected anew since said issue had already been
resolved and finally laid to rest, if not by the principle of res judicata, at
least by conclusiveness of judgment.[102] (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)
Res judicata has two concepts. The first is bar by prior judgment under Rule
39, Section 47 (b), and the second is conclusiveness of judgment under Rule
39, Section 47 (c). Both concepts are founded on the principle of estoppel,
and are based on the salutary public policy against unnecessary multiplicity
of suits. Like the splitting of causes of action, res judicata is in pursuance of
such policy. Matters settled by a Court's final judgment should not be
litigated upon or invoked again. Relitigation of issues already settled merely
burdens the Courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and confusion,
and wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier
cases.[107] (Citations omitted)
The DARAB, in DARAB Case No. VIII-319-SL-2000, held that all the essential elements
of a tenancy relationship were proven by petitioner.[110] It found that there was
substantial evidence to support petitioner's claim as tenant of the land.[111] In
rendering the Decision, the DARAB examined pleadings and affidavits of both petitioner
and private complainant.[112] 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.[113] Petitioner and Andres Pacate had an
agreement to share the produce after harvest.[114] However, Andres Pacate had died
before the first harvest.[115] 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.[116]
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.[117] The
DARAB even quoted in its Decision the reason offered by private complainant's counsel
in his Motion to Withdraw as counsel:
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 10/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
That as early as the preliminary hearings of the case, the respondent has
already shown her intention not to participate the proceedings of the case
for reasons known only to her;
That despite the advi[c]e of the undersigned, respondent stood pat with her
decision not to participate in the proceedings of the case;
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.[119] 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[120] relied on Rollo, et al. v. Leal Realty
Centrum Co., Inc., et al.[121]
In Rollo, petitioners, who were farmers of a 21-hectare agricultural land in Tarlac that
was principally devoted to sugar and rice and who claim the rights of their
predecessors-in-interest, filed separate Complaints before the Provincial Adjudication
Board of Region III in Tarlac, Tarlac. They claimed that when the registered owner of
the land, Josefina Roxas Omaña, sold the land to respondents, respondents were aware
of the tenancy relationship between petitioners and Josefina Roxas Omaña.[122]
The Provincial Adjudicator ruled, among other things, that "there was no tenancy
relationship [that] existed between the parties."[125] He found that petitioners and
their predecessors-in-interest were mere hired laborers, not tenants. Tenancy cannot
be presumed from respondents' offer of a compensation package.[126]
On appeal, the DARAB reversed the Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator. It found that
there was an implied tenancy between the parties. Petitioners were deemed tenants of
the land for more than 30 years. They were entitled to security of tenure.[127]
The Court of Appeals reversed the DARAB Decision and reinstated the Provincial
Adjudicator's Decision. It held that there was no substantial evidence to prove that all
the requisites of tenancy relationship existed. However, despite the lack of tenancy
relationship, the compensation package agreement must be upheld.[128]
This court affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision.[129] It held that petitioners failed to
overcome the burden of proving the existence of a tenancy relationship:
At the outset, the parties do not appear to be the landowner and the
tenants. While it appears that there was personal cultivation by petitioners
and their predecessors-in-interest of the subject landholding, what was
established was that petitioners' claim of tenancy was founded on the self-
serving testimony of petitioner Rodolfo Rollo that his predecessors-in-
interest had been in possession of the landholding for more than 30 years
and had engaged in a "50-50" sharing scheme with JOSEFINA and
JOSEFINA's grandmother, the previous owner thereof. Self-serving
statements in pleadings are inadequate; proof must be adduced. Such
claims do not suffice absent concrete evidence to support them. The burden
rests on the shoulders of petitioners to prove their affirmative allegation of
tenancy, which burden they failed to discharge with substantial evidence.
Such a juridical tie must be aptly shown. Simply put, he who alleges the
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 11/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof, and from the plaintiff in a
civil case, the burden of proof never parts. The same rule applies to
administrative cases. In fact, if the complainant, upon whom rests the
burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner
the facts upon which he bases his claim, the respondent is under no
obligation to prove his exception or defense....
Neither was it shown to the satisfaction of this Court that there existed a
sharing of harvests in the context of a tenancy relationship between
petitioners and/or their predecessors-in-interest and JOSEFINA.
Jurisprudence is illuminating to the effect that to prove such sharing of
harvests, a receipt or any other evidence must be presented. None was
shown. No receipts were presented as testaments to the claimed sharing of
harvests. The only evidence submitted to establish the purported sharing of
harvests was the testimony of petitioner Rodolfo Rollo. The sharing
arrangement cannot be deemed to have existed on the basis alone of
petitioner Rodolfo Rollo's claim. It is self-serving and is without evidentiary
value. Self-serving statements are deemed inadequate; competent proof
must be adduced. If at all, the fact alone of sharing is not sufficient to
establish a tenancy relationship.
We also sustain the conclusion reached by the Provincial Adjudicator and the
Court of Appeals that the testimony of Araceli Pascua, an employee of the
DAR in Victoria, Tarlac, that the subject landholding was tenanted cannot
overcome substantial evidence to the contrary. To prove the alleged tenancy
no reliance may be made upon the said public officer's testimony. What
cannot be ignored is the precedent ruling of this Court that the findings of or
certifications issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, or his authorized
representative, in a given locality concerning the presence or absence of a
tenancy relationship between the contending parties, are merely preliminary
or provisional and are not binding upon the courts. This ruling holds with
greater effect in the instant case in light of the fact that petitioners, as
herein shown, were not able to prove the presence of all the indispensable
elements of tenancy.[130] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Thus, in Rollo, this court did not categorically hold that the DARAB's findings were
merely provisional and, thus, not binding on courts. What was deemed as a preliminary
determination of tenancy was the testimony of the Department of Agrarian Reform
employee stating that the land involved was tenanted. Further, the tribunals had
conflicting findings on whether petitioners were bona fide tenants.
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.[131] It is
also established that private complainant participated in the initial stages of the DARAB
proceedings.[132] 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.
VI
According to petitioner, the elements of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code were not established since he was a bona fide tenant of the land.[133] The
DARAB's recognition of petitioner as a legitimate tenant necessarily "implie[d] that he
ha[d] the authority to harvest the abaca hemp from [private complainant's land]."[134]
This shows that petitioner had no criminal intent.
As to the existence of another element of theft—that the taking was done without the
consent of the owner—petitioner argues that this, too, was negated by his status as
private complainant's tenant:
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 12/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Well-settled is the rule that where "inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to
support a conviction." In acquitting an appellant, we are not saying that he
is lily-white, or pure as driven snow. Rather, we are declaring his innocence
because the prosecution's evidence failed to show his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. For that is what the basic law requires. Where the
evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused, then his "acquittal must follow in faithful obeisance to the
fundamental law."[136] (Citations omitted)
The Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the findings of the trial court finding
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of theft.
ARTICLE. 308. Who are Liable for Theft. — Theft is committed by any person
who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another
without the latter's consent.
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the
same to the local authorities or to its owner;
The essential elements of theft are: (1) taking of personal property; (2) the property
taken belongs to another; (3) the taking was done without the owner's consent; (4)
there was intent to gain; and (5) the taking was done without violence against or
intimidation of the person or force upon things.[137]
persons who — in themselves and with the aid available from within their
immediate farm households — cultivate the land belonging to or possessed
by another, with the latter's consent, for purposes of production, sharing the
produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to
the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or money or both
under the leasehold tenancy system.[138] (Citation omitted)
Under this definition, 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.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 13/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
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.
In Pit-og v. People,[139] this court acquitted petitioner of theft of sugarcane and banana
crops on the basis of reasonable doubt.[140] The prosecution failed to prove lack of
criminal intent on petitioner's part.[141] It failed to clearly identify "the person who, as
a result of a criminal act, without his knowledge and consent, was wrongfully deprived
of a thing belonging to him."[142] There were doubts as to whether the plants taken by
petitioner were indeed planted on private complainant's lot when petitioner had planted
her own plants adjacent to it.[143] Thus, it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt
that the property belonged to private complainant. This court found that petitioner
"took the sugarcane and bananas believing them to be her own. That being the case,
she could not have had a criminal intent."[144]
In this case, petitioner harvested the abaca, believing that he was entitled to the
produce as a legitimate tenant cultivating the land owned by private complainant.
Personal property may have been taken, but it is with the consent of the owner.
No less than the Constitution provides that the accused shall be presumed innocent of
the crime until proven guilty.[145] "[I]t is better to acquit ten guilty individuals than to
convict one innocent person."[146] Thus, courts must consider "[e]very circumstance
against guilt and in favor of innocence[.]"[147] Equally settled is that "[w]here the
evidence admits of two interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt, and the
other with innocence, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt and should be
acquitted."[148]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated March
16, 2010 and the Resolution dated February 2, 2012 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner Monico Ligtas is ACQUITTED of the crime of theft under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code. If detained, he is ordered immediately RELEASED, unless he is
confined for any other lawful cause. Any amount paid by way of a bailbond is ordered
RETURNED.
SO ORDERED.
[2] Id. at 92-110. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 00482. The Decision
[3] Id. at 118-119. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos
Santos (Chair) and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and
Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals Cebu City.
[5] Id. at 35-49-A. The Decision was penned by Judge Rolando L. Gonzalez of Branch
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 14/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[7] Id. at 92. See REV. PEN. CODE, art. 308. Who are Liable for Theft. — Theft is
committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another
without the latter's consent.
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the
local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall
remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is
forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall
hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm
products.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[13] Id. at 94 and 96-99. The confrontation was pursuant to a summons sent to Ligtas
[16] Id at 45 and 99. Records show that Anecita Pacate and Andres Pacate, Sr. (Id. at
17) had two sons: Ernesto Pacate and Andres Pacate, Jr. (Id. at 42). However, Andres
Pacate, Sr. is referred to in the records as "Andres Pacate."
[17] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[23] Id.
[25] Id. at 28-34. The case was docketed as DARAB Case No. VIII-319-SL-2000. The
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 15/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[31] Id.
[33] Id. at 49-A. Per the testimonies of the witnesses before the trial court and as
adopted by the Court of Appeals, the "Kasabutan" or Agreement dated February 24,
2007 was previously executed between Ligtas and Anecita Pacate. The Agreement
involved another incident of theft committed by Ligtas against Anecita Pacate. He was
also charged with theft in 1988; however, the case was ultimately dismissed (Id. at 18-
19, 37, 40, 41-43, 46-47, and 49).
[38] Id., citing Cornes, et al. v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., et al., 582 Phil. 528, 552
[40] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Id.
[46] Id.
[47] Id.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 16/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[52] Id.
[55] Id. at 21. Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review
for 30 days dated March 2, 2012 (Id. at 2-4), which the court granted (Id. at 122).
[56] Id. at 122. The Resolution was dated March 4, 2013. Respondent, through the
Office of the Solicitor General, filed its Comment on June 27, 2013 (Id. at 128-143). In
the Resolution (Id. at 145) dated August 14, 2013, this court noted the Comment and
required petitioner to file a Reply to the Comment. Petitioner filed his Reply (Id. at 147-
149) dated October 14, 2013, which we noted on January 15, 2014 (Id. at 152). In the
Resolution (Id. at 165-167) dated July 14, 2014, this court gave due course to the
petition and required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda within 30 days
from notice. Petitioner's Memorandum (Id. at 184-201) dated October 8, 2014 was
posted on October 10, 2014 (Id. at 184). Respondent filed its Memorandum (Id. at
174-182) dated October 2, 2014 before this court on October 3, 2014 (Id. at 174).
[59] See Delos Reyes Vda. Del Prado v. People, G.R. No. 186030, March 21, 2012, 668
[60] See People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 827, 844-
[61] Ruiz v. People, 512 Phil. 127, 135 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr, Second Division],
quoting Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 425 Phil. 752, 765-766 (2002) [Per C.J. Davide,
Jr., En Banc].
[63] Delos Reyes Vda. Del Prado v. People, G.R. No. 186030, March 21, 2012, 668
[64] Pit-og v. People, 268 Phil. 413, 420 (1990) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division].
[65] Cornes, et al. v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., et al., 582 Phil. 528, 548 (2008)
[Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division], citing Mon v. Court of Appeals, 471 Phil. 65, 78
(2004) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
[66] See Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot v. Court of Appeals, 547 Phil. 113, 120 (2007) [Per J.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 17/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[72] Id.
[82] Paredes v. Court of Appeals, 555 Phil. 538, 549-550 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario,
Third Division].
[85] See Miro v. Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, G.R. Nos. 172532 & 172544-45, November
20, 2013, 710 SCRA 371, 383 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
[86] See Autencio v. City Administrator Mañara, 489 Phil. 752, 761 (2005) [Per J.
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.— The DAR is hereby vested with primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian
reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to
hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner,
employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with
justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform
rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of every
action or proceeding before it.
It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require
submission of reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to
interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 18/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. It shall likewise have the power to
punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and subject to the same
penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.
Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be
immediately executory. (Emphasis supplied)
[88] Martillano v. Court of Appeals, 447 Phil. 226, 236-237 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-
Santiago, First Division], citing Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), secs. 50 and 51.
[89] Suarez v. Saul, 510 Phil. 400, 409 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division],
citing Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 3 (d) in relation to sec. 50 and DARAB Rules of
Procedure, Rule II, sec. 1.
[94] G.R. No. 187317, April 11, 2013, 696 SCRA 240 [Per C.J. Sereno, En Banc].
[100] Id. at 229-230. The DARAB Decision pertains to DARAB Case No. 062-Bul '89,
which resolved Abelardo Valenzuela, Jr.'s Complaint for "the cancellation of the
Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) No. 0-042751 and/or Emancipation Patent Nos. A-
308399 issued in favor of [petitioner] Nicanor Martillano. On April 4, 1990, Valenzuela
sold 19 parcels of land[,] . . . more or less 1.3785 hectares[,] to private respondent
[William] Po Cham."
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 19/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[110] Rollo, p. 33. See VHJ Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 480 Phil. 28, 35 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division]: "The requisites
of a tenancy relationship are as follows: (1) the parties are the landowner and the
tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent by the landowner; (4)
the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is
sharing of the harvests."
[111] Rollo, p. 33. See RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 5 provides:
[115] Id.
[116] Id. The DARAB Decision states that Ligtas had peacefully cultivated the land from
1993 to June 29, 2000, when respondent Anecita Pacate ordered men to harvest abaca
from the land.
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.—A court shall take judicial notice, without
the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the
admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and
history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the
geographical divisions.
SECTION 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.—A court may take judicial notice of
matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
See also Tabuena v. Court of Appeals, et al., 274 Phil. 51, 56-57 (1991) [Per J. Cruz,
First Division].
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 20/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[126] Id.
[134] Id.
[135] Id.
[137] See Gan v. People, 550 Phil. 133, 159 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First
Division]; United States v. De Vera, 43 Phil. 1000, 1003 (1921) [Per J. Villamor, En
Banc]; and People v. Yusay, 50 Phil. 598, 607 (1927) [Per J. Villa-Real, En Banc].
[138] Cornes, et al. v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., et al., 582 Phil. 528, 548 (2008)
[139] 268 Phil. 413 (1990) [Per C.J. Fernan, Third Division].
[142] Id.
[146] Ubales v. People, 591 Phil. 238, 257 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
[147] Id.
[148] Id. at 257-258, citing People v. Mijares, 358 Phil. 154, 166 (1998) [Per J.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 21/22
3/19/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Panganiban, First Division]; People v. Corpuz, 459 Phil. 100, 113 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-
Santiago, First Division].
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61367 22/22