(19)

People v. Almuete (1976) | G.R. No. L-26551 | February 27, 1976 | Ponente: AQUINO, J.

TOPIC: Under I-G. CharacterisNcs of Criminal Law; Effect of repeal of penal law
FACTS:
• Wenceslao Almuete Fernando Fronda, Cipriano Fronda and Fausto Durion were charged with a viola7on of
secNon 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law
• Alleged in the informa7on December, 1963,(no day stated) in MUÑOZ, NUEVA ECIJA the accused being
tenants of MARGARITA FERNANDO in her riceland, without noNce to her or without her consent, PRE-
THRESHED a por7on of their respec7ve harvests of FIVE (5) CAVANS of palay each to her damage in the
amount of P187.50 at P12.50 a cavan
• Court of First Instance of NUEVA ECIJA, STO. DOMINGO BRANCH VI
• Upon arraignment the accused pleaded NOT GUILTY
• They filed mo7on FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS as to the EXACT DATE of the commission of the
offense charged
• lower court DENIED THEIR MOTION because they had already entered their plea
• They (accused) -filed a mo7on to quash the informa7on on grounds:
• (1) that it does not allege facts sufficient to cons7tute the crime charged
• (2) that there is no law punishing it
• (3) that the court has, no jurisdic7on over the alleged 7me
• The lower court GRANTED THE MOTION and DISMISSED THE INFORMATION in its order of August 11, 1966
• It held that the INFORMATION IS BASICALLY DEFICIENT because it does not describe the
circumstances under which the cavans of palay were found in the possession of the accused tenants
• does NOT SPECIFY THE DATE agreed upon for the threshing of the harvests
• it DOES NOT ALLEGE that the palay found in the tenants' POSSESSION EXCEEDED TEN PERCENT OF
THEIR NET SHARE based on the last normal harvest
• Prosecu7on appealed
• The Solicitor General argues in his brief that the informa7on in this case alleges all the elements of the
offense defined in SECTION 39 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1199, AS AMENDED OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2263.
SECTIONS 39 AND 57 of the same law

ISSUES + RULING:
Whether or not the order of dismissal should be affirmed. YES
• In this case, the prosecu7on is appealing based on the Agricultural Tenancy Law of 1954, par7cularly secNon
39
o The evident purpose of sec7on 39 is to PREVENT the tenant and the landholder from DEFRAUDING
each other in the division of the harvests
• The court holds the order of dismissal be affirmed and cites People vs Adillo a case similar to the instant
case, sec7on 99 was IMPLIEDLY REPEALED by the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, as amended by
Republic Act No. 6389 168 O.G. 915) and as implemented by Presiden7al Decrees Nos. 2, 27 and 316
• The court cites The Agricultural Land Reform code has superseded the Agricultural Tenancy Law. And that
sec7on 39 of the Agricultural Tenancy Law was not reproduced in the Agricultural Land Reform code whose
sec7on 172 REPEALS “all laws or part of any law inconsistent with” its provisions.
o If Sir asks what kind of a repeal, I think it’s an IMPLIED REPEAL
 • Thus, the legal maxim, CESSANTE RATIONE LEGIS, CESSAT IPSA LEX (the reason for the law ceasing, the law
itself also ceases) applies to this case.
• The act of pre-reaping and pre-threshing without no7ce to the landlord, which is an offense under the
Agricultural Tenancy Law, had ceased to be an offense under the subsequent law, the Code of Agrarian
Reforms.
• Also, I’m copying a paragraph from the ruling, not so sure if relevant, but just in case he’ll ask about it
o Sec7on 4 of the Code of Agrarian Reforms declared agricultural share tenancy throughout the
country as contrary to public policy and automa7cally converted it to agricultural leasehold.
Presiden7al Decree No. 2 proclaimed the en7re country "as a land reform area". Presiden7al Decree
No. 27 emancipated the tenant from the bondage of the soil. And Presiden7al Decree No. 316
interdicted the ejectment or removal of the tenant-farmer from his farmholding un7l the
promulga7on of the rules and regula7ons implemen7ng Presiden7al Decree No. 27.
o Note, this is men7oned in People vs Adillo
• Sec7on 39 not being reproduced was because the legisla7ve intent was not to punish anymore the tenant’s
act of pre-reaping and pre-threshing without no7ce to the landlord
o Because sec7on 34 of the Agricultural Land Reform code already provides that the lessee is obliged
to pay a fixed rental
• Now, let me point out that the Agricultural Land Reform code was in 1963. But it also said that Agricultural
Land Reform Code, or the Code of Agrarian Reforms, as redesignated in Republic Act No. 6389 which took
effect on September 10, 1971.
o This has me a bit confused, and is currently beyond my level of thinking… hahaha
o So just in case he asks what date, tell him that ArNcle 22 of the RPC is in effect. That is the
RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS.
• The repeal of appeal law deprives the courts of jurisdic7on to punish persons charged with a viola7on of the
old penal law prior to its repeal.
• I am not very confident with this digest, but I hope it helps. Cheers

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal is affirmed with costs de oficio.

SUPPLEMENTS:
SECTION 39 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1199, AS AMENDED OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2263. SECTIONS 39 AND 57
(Agricultural Tenancy Law)
• SEC. 39. PROHIBITION ON PRE-THRESHING. — It shall be UNLAWFUL for either the tenant or
landholder, WITHOUT MUTUAL CONSENT, to reap or THRESH a por7on of the crop at any 7me
PREVIOUS TO THE DATE SET for its threshing: Provided that if the tenant needs food for his family
and the landholder does not or cannot furnish such and refuses to allow the tenant to reap or thresh
a por7on of the crop previous to the date set for its threshing, the tenant can reap or thresh NOT
MORE THAN TEN PERCENT OF HIS NET SHARE in the last normal harvest afer giving no7ce thereof
to the landholder or his representa7ve. Any viola7on of this situa7on by either party shall be treated
and penalized in accordance with this Act and/or under the general provisions of law applicable to
that act commiied
• SEC. 57. PENAL PROVISION. — Viola7on of the provisions of ... sec7ons thirty-nine and forty-nine of
this Act shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding one year, or both, in the discre7on of the Court. ... *
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6389
 • AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED THIRTY-EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY-FOUR, AS
AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
ARTICLE 22 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE:
• Retroac7ve effect of Penal Laws – Penal laws shall have a retroac7ve effect in so far as they favor the
person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Ar7cle 62
of this code, although at the 7me of the publica7on of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
SECTION 34 OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE
• SecNon 34. Considera?on for the Lease of Riceland and Lands Devoted to Other Crops - The
considera7on for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops shall not be more than the
equivalent of twenty-five per centum of the average normal harvest during the three agricultural
years immediately preceding the date the leasehold was established afer deduc7ng the amount
used for seeds and the cost of harves7ng, threshing, loading, hauling and processing, whichever are
applicable: Provided, That if the land has been cul7vated for a period of less than three years, the
ini7al considera7on shall be based on the average normal harvest during the preceding years when
the land was actually cul7vated, or on the harvest of the first year in the case of newly-cul7vated
lands, if that harvest is normal: Provided, further, That afer the lapse of the first three normal
harvests, the final considera7on shall be based on the average normal harvest during these three
preceding agricultural years: Provided, furthermore, That in the absence of any agreement between
the par7es as to the rental, the maximum allowed herein shall apply: Provided, finally, That if capital
improvements are introduced on the farm not by the lessee to increase its produc7vity, the rental
shall be increased propor7onately to the consequent increase in produc7on due to said
improvements. In case of disagreement, the Court shall determine the reasonable increase in rental.