Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17644 June 22, 1965
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,
vs.
LAMBERTO GUEVARRA Y YCO, ET AL., accused;
THE RURAL INSURANCE and SURETY CO., INC., bondsman-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff.
Guanlao, Palma and Aquino for bondsman-appellant.
BENGZON, C.J.:
Forfeiture of a bail bond. Appeal of the surety.
When in 1959 Lamberto Guevarra resorted to the Court of Appeals for reversal of his conviction of estafa, he posted a bond for provisional release in the amount of P15,000.00. Subscribed by the Rural Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., it, undertook that, if convicted, the accuse will appear for judgment and surrender himself for execution thereof.
In due course, the appellate court affirmed the verdict of conviction; and the record having been remanded to the Manila Court of First Instance, the surety received on August 3, 1959 a notice whereby said court directed the surety to produce Lamberto Guevarra on August 7, 1959, at 7:30 a.m. for the promulgation of the judgment.
But the accused failed to appear at the time indicated. Wherefore, the presiding judge, on the same day, decreed the arrest of Guevarra and the confiscation of the bail bond.
Notified of the decree, the surety exerted efforts to arrest the accused through its agents; and on September 4, 1959, it actually surrendered him to the police department. And filing a petition for relief on September 5, 1959, it alleged:
That your herein movant on August 11, 1959 received the aforementioned order of confiscation of the bond and the arrest of the accused and immediately instructed its agents-arresting-officers to locate the whereabouts of the accused with a view of producing his person before this Honorable Court at an early date;
That the agents of your movant in their search for the accused GUEVARRA went to No. 106 Santolan Road, Quezon City, the given address of the accused, said accused is nowhere to be found, but movant's men exerted diligent efforts in locating the whereabouts of the accused and gathered information that the accused was in hiding in Pasig, Rizal;
That the agents of this company in their continuous search and after spending considerable amount of money by hiring informants finally arrested the accused in Bo. Pinagbuhatan, Pasig, Rizal, and turned his person over to the Manila Police Department for confinement as evidenced by a certification hereto attached marked as Annex "A" thereby forming part of this motion;
That for this act of the accused, your herein movant lost confidence in his person and is now surrendering him by virtue of the Annex "A" certificate and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court;
That your herein movant is aware of the inherent discretionary power of the Court in determining the liability of bondsmen in criminal cases, provided the body of the accused has been produced, and thru this discretion your herein movant now seeks the kind and generous consideration of this Honorable Court in lifting the order of confiscation of the bond and in ordering the same bond cancelled relieving movant from liability.
On September 12, 1959, the court denied the petition in a short "without merit" order. A more extended motion to reconsider having been denied, the surety appealed to the Court of Appeals, which forwarded the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Solicitor General entertains some doubt concerning the propriety of the appeal because no money-judgment against the surety has — so far — been rendered in accordance with the usual procedure. However, his office in effect agrees that the orders may be considered forfeitures of the bond and judgment against the surety, for payment. And his office seemingly does not oppose a reduction of the amount of forfeiture — which is precisely one of the alternate objectives of the surety's appeal.
Overlooking the question of procedure 1 and going into the merits, we received the impression that the court below dealt rather strictly with the surety company. No doubt, it had the power to set aside the forfeiture order or to reduce the amount. It had discretion to do so (People v. Tan, 54 Off. Gaz. 989). And such discretion should have been exercised with a view to liberality, considering that it is for the best interest of the State to mitigate, in similar circumstances, the liability of the sureties not only to make it worth their while to aid in locating and apprehending the defendant, but also to hold down premiums and to make bails less difficult or expensive for detention prisoners. (People vs. Puyal 52 Off. Gaz. 6886; People vs. Tan, supra.)
Having examined all the circumstances, 2 and realizing that had the surety been given, as usual, a thirty-day period to produce the accused, it would have preduced him, we hold that reducing the forfeiture to the amount of three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) would satisfy public interest in this instance. 3
Judgment against the Rural Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., for that amount, which shall be paid within sixty days after this rendition shall have become final. No costs.
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala. Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.
Barrera, J., is on leave.
Footnotes
1Their motion to lift and motion for reconsideration may amount to a hearing. Substantial compliance with sec. 15, Rule 114.
2Specially that surety's own agents arrested the convict.
3Bond of P5,000 forfeited; upon surrender of accused, forfeiture reduced to P500.00 (People v. Daisia, 54 Off. Gaz. 1824); bonds of P10,000 and P4,000 reduced to P2,000 and P800.00, respectively. (People vs. Phil. International Surety, L-12660, Feb. 19, 1959, and People v. Associated Insurance, L-9497, July 31, 1956.)
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
