Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > January 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12056 January 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO GONZALES

105 Phil 47:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12056. January 24, 1959.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO GONZALES, Defendant. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., bondsman-appellant.

Assistant Solicitor General Florencio Villamor and Solicitor Isidro C. Borromeo for Appellee.

Raul A. Aristorenas and Benjamin Relova for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULES OF; DUTY OF BONDSMAN WHEN ACCUSED IS REQUIRED TO APPEAR; NOTICE ALONE NOT SUFFICIENT. — Although the bondsmen notified the accused long before the date set for hearing of the case requiring him to appear on said date, that notice alone is not a sufficient compliance with its commitment under the bond for under Section 17, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, a bondsman is in duty bound to produce the person of the accused when his appearance is required by the court, which shows that mere notification is not sufficient but the bondsman must make every effort to see that he actually makes his appearance. If the bondsman fails to take such action, the trial Court may consider it negligent in the performance of its duty, which finding the Supreme court shall not disturb, for in cases of this nature the determination of the sufficiency of the explanation given is a matter that lies within the discretion of the lower court.

2. ID.; SCOPE AND NATURE OF BONDSMAN’S DUTY. — The bondsman’s contention to the effect that "to require the sureties to know each and every actuation of the accused all the time is to carry the obligation of the bail too far and indicates lack of appreciation of the actual conditions under which defendants in criminal case are bailed out" is untenable, because "when the obligation of bail is assumed, the sureties become in law the jailers of their principal. Their custody of him is the continuation of the original imprisonment, and though they cannot actually confine him, they are subrogated to all the other rights and means which the government possesses to make their control of him effective." (U.S. v. Addison and Gomez, 27 Phil. 562).


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On October 15, 1956 the Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. posted a bail bond in the amount of P2,000 for the provisional release of the accused in Criminal Case No. 4470 pending in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija subject to the condition that the company will be liable should the accused fail to appear when required by the court. On November 27, 1956, the date of hearing of the case, the accused failed to appear notwithstanding due notice given to his bondsman, whereupon the court ordered the confiscation of the bonds and gave the bondsman filed a period of thirty days within which to produce the accused and show cause why judgment should not be rendered on said bond. On December 7, 1956, the bondsman filed a motion to lift the order of confiscation and at the same time explaining that the accused failed to appear on the date of trial because his mother was very ill and was brought to the San Lazaro Hospital for treatment. In the meantime, the court, upon motion of special counsel Ferrer, ordered the dismissal of the case against the accused. This notwithstanding, the court denied the motion to lift the order of confiscation in the order entered on December 13, 1956, but reduced the liability of the bondsman to 20% of the original bond. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the bondsman took the present appeal.

In denying the motion to lift the order of confiscation of the bond, the trial court made the following comment: ". . . considering that on the date set for the trial of this case the said company failed to make such manifestation showing that they did not even know where the accused was and that they did not exert diligent efforts to contact him, . . . the court finds the said motion not well founded and so hereby denied the same." And the manifestation above referred to is to the effect that the defendant failed to appear on the date set for the trial of the case because his mother was very ill and was brought to the San Lazaro Hospital. It is now contended that the trial court abused its discretion in not considering the above explanation of satisfactory it appearing that the bondsman was able to produce the accused within the 30-day period set for his production and was able to give a satisfactory explanation of its failure to produce him on the date of the trial.

This contention is without merit. Granting that the bondsman notified the accused long before the hearing on November 27, 1956 requiring him to appear on said date, that notice alone is not a sufficient compliance with its commitment under the bonds for under Section 17, Rule 110, a bondsman is in duty bound to produce the person of the accused when his appearance is required by the court, which shows that mere notification is not sufficient but the bondsman must make every effort to see that he actually makes his appearance. Because of such inaction, the trial court considered the bondsman negligent in the performance of its duty as the rule requires. We are not disposed to disturb this finding for in case of this nature the determination of the sufficiency of the explanation given is a matter that lies within the discretion of the court. 1

Another claim of the bondsman for its failure to produce the accused on time is that it is not required for it to know all the whereabouts of its principal so that it may be ever ready to produce him when required by the court for, "To require the sureties to know each and every actuation of the accused all the time is to carry the obligation of the bail too far and indicates lack of appreciation of the actual conditions under which defendants in criminal cases are bailed out." This claim is untenable for, as this Court has aptly said: "When the obligation of bail is assumed, the sureties become in law the jailers of their principal. Their custody of him is the continuance of the original imprisonment, and though they cannot actually confine him, they are subrogated to all the other rights and means which the government possesses to make their control of him effective" (U.S. v. Addison and Gomez, 27 Phil., 562).

Considering, however, that the bondsman was able to produce the accused within the period set by the trial court, this can be considered enough justification to mitigate its liability and in our opinion the reduction made the trial court of the amount of the bond to 20% is reasonable.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. People v. Reyes, 48 Phil., 139; People v. Alamada, 89 Phil., 1.




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






January-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10701 January 16, 1959 - MARIA CANO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10910 January 16, 1959 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. ANTONIO LEJANO

    105 Phil 6

  • G.R. Nos. L-11298, L-11586 & L-11603 January 19, 1959 - RICARDO GUTIERREZ v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC.

    105 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-10802 January 22, 1959 - PROVINCE OF RIZAL v. BARTOLOME SAN DIEGO

    105 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 12448 January 22, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO SANTOS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-11575 January 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINDA PADILLA

    105 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. L-12056 January 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO GONZALES

    105 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. L-12194 January 24, 1959 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANNA HARRIET CLEMENT, ET AL.

    105 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-12772 January 24, 1959 - SUSANA MACAZO, ET AL. v. BENILDO NUÑEZ

    105 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. L-9146 January 27, 1959 - TERESA VDA. DE FERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 11598 January 27, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO BUSTAMANTE

    105 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-12623 January 27, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO GUIAO Y DAVID

    105 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-12731 January 27, 1959 - FAUSTO CATAGONA v. SEGUNDO DIONISIO

    105 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-11831 January 29, 1959 - ISIDORA AUREO v. FUNDADOR AUREO

    105 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9585 January 30, 1959 - PETRITA PASCUAL, ET AL. v. RUDYARDO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-11169 January 30, 1959 - FELIPE HORTILLOSA v. RODOLFO GANZON

    105 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-11263 January 30, 1959 - OSMUNDO C. RAMOS v. R. C. DEANE, ET AL.

    105 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-11486 January 30, 1959 - JESUS ALVAREZ v. DIRECTOR of LANDS

    105 Phil 115

  • G.R. No. L-11836 January 30, 1959 - MANUEL M. COSTA v. GENOVEVA V. BALMES

    105 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-11932 January 30, 1959 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA

    105 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. L-13709 January 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO TOGLE

    105 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-11090 January 31, 1959 - VICENTE E. GROSPE v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-11764 January 31, 1959 - ENRIQUE CUISON, ET AL. v. ISIDRO G. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    105 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-12054 January 31, 1959 - JOSE ESCAY v. JOSE TEODORO, SR. ., ETC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-12111 January 31, 1959 - AGATONA GERONIMO, ET AL. v. JOSE NAVA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-12520 January 31, 1959 - SEISMUNDO RAMOS v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF DAET, ET AL.

    105 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. L-12271 January 31, 1959 - JOSEPH ABELOW v. JOSE DE LA RIVA

    105 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-13059 January 31, 1959 - TIMOTEO VALENCIA, JR. v. FELIPE MABILANGAN

    105 Phil 162