Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1903 > May 1903 Decisions > G.R. No. 1234 May 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. E. S. LEWIS

002 Phil 193:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1234. May 6, 1903. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. E. S. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

William Tutherly for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Araneta for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; BAIL BOND; SURETIES OBLIGATION. — The sureties on a bail bond do not obligate themselves to produce the prisoner at the hearing of his cause on appeal in the Supreme Court and can not be in default before rendition of judgment on such appeal.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Proceedings on appeal in the Supreme Court will not be stayed in a criminal case on account of the absence of the accused, a his presence is not necessary at the hearing.


D E C I S I O N


LADD, J. :


The appellant was convicted October 24, 1902, by the Court of First Instance of Manila, of larceny, and sentenced to eight months of presidio correccional. He appealed, and November 4, 1902, he furnished a bond and was admitted to bail by the trial court. The appeal has not yet come on for hearing in this court.

Two motions have been presented, one by the Government asking that a period be fixed within which the sureties on the bail bond be required to bring the accused before this court, and that upon their failure so to do the bond be declared forfeited; the other by Mr. Tutherly, counsel for the appellant, who makes affidavit to the effect that his client has left Manila for parts unknown, and is probably beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and asks that all proceedings in the case be suspended during his absence.

The presence of the appellant in this court is not necessary in order that the appeal may be heard and judgment rendered, nor do the sureties on the bail bond given by him undertake that he will be present in this court either before the hearing or at the hearing; their undertaking is "that he will pay such fine as the appellate court may direct, or will surrender himself in execution of such judgment as the appellate court may render, or that, in case the cause is remanded for a new trial, he will appear in the court to which it may be remanded and submit himself to the orders and processes thereof" (G.O., No. 58, sec. 65). The sureties may of course prevent the accused from leaving the jurisdiction, if they think it is unsafe to allow him to do so (G.O., No 58, sec. 75); the court may increase the amount of the bond if it is insufficient (G.O., No. 58, sec. 72). but the Government can not enforce a forfeiture of the bond until a breach of the condition has occured, which can not be before the rendition of judgment by this court.

For the reasons stated both motions are denied.

Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Willard, Mapa and McDonough, JJ., concur.

Torres, J., did not sit in this case.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1903 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1096 May 5, 1903 - MARTIN BALATBAT v. VALENTIN TANJUTCO

    002 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 1292 May 5, 1903 - MARCELINO DE LA CRUZ v. GEO N. WOLFE

    002 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 1072 May 6, 1903 - MANUEL ABELLO v. SEÑORA PAZ KOCK DE MONASTERIO

    002 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. 1102 May 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE TENGCO

    002 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 1234 May 6, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. E. S. LEWIS

    002 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. 1053 May 7, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. MAMERTO VARGAS, ET AL.

    002 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 1014 May 9, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL REPOLLO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 1076 May 9, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    002 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. 49 May 11, 1903 - MUN. OF ANTIPOLO v. COMMUNITY OF CAINTA

    002 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 1011 May 13, 1903 - JOSE MACHUCA v. CHUIDIAN

    002 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 1055 May 13, 1903 - JOSE ACUÑA v. MUN. OF THE CITY OF ILOILO

    002 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 1227 May 13, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. HOWARD D. TERRELL

    002 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 1015 May 14, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO REPOLLO, ET AL.

    002 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 1189 May 14, 1903 - ALEJANDRO BAUTISTA v. HON. ELIAS F. JOHNSON

    002 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 1336 May 14, 1903 - GABRIELA ALIÑO, ET AL. v. IGNACIO VILLAMOR

    002 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 38 May 15, 1903 - PASTELLS & REGORDOSA v. HOLLMAN & CO.

    002 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 1043 May 15, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN ATIENZA

    002 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 1044 May 15, 1903 - PEDRO JULIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    002 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 1109 May 15, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. LERMA

    002 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 1203 May 15, 1903 - IN RE: HOWARD D. TERRELL

    002 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 1007 May 16, 1903 - PAULINO REYES v. HON. FELIX M. ROXAS

    002 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. 1049 May 16, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FRED L. DORR, ET AL.

    002 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 1056 May 16, 1903 - AGUEDA BENEDICTO v. ESTEBAN LA RAMA

    002 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 1111 May 16, 1903 - FELICIDAD GARCIA DE LARA v. JOSE GONZALEZ DE LARA, ET AL.

    002 Phil 294

  • G.R. No 1085 May 16, 1903 - RUDOLPH WAHL, ET AL. v. DONALDSON, SIMS & CO.

    002 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. 39 May 19, 1903 - TUASON & SAN PEDRO v. GAVINA ZAMORA & SONS

    002 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 967 May 19, 1903 - DARIO AND GAUDENCIO ELEIZEGUI v. MANILA LAWN TENNIS CLUB

    002 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 997 May 19, 1903 - MARIA UBALDO v. LAO-JIANQUIAO

    002 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 1027 May 19, 1903 - RAMON DEL ROSARIO v. CLEMENTE DEL ROSARIO

    002 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 1051 May 19, 1903 - UNITED STATES v. FRED L. DORR, ET AL.

    002 Phil 332