G.R. No. L-17060; May 30, 1963
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. KUSAIN SAIK and QUIAMA AKAN, defendants, LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC., bondsman-appellee.

FACTS

Accused Guiama Akan, convicted of murder with physical injuries, appealed and was provisionally released upon posting an appeal bond of P14,000 with Luzon Surety Company, Inc. as bondsman. The Supreme Court dismissed Akan’s appeal. When the trial court set the promulgation of judgment, the bondsman moved for extensions to produce Akan, citing difficulties in locating him and his guarantor. Subsequently, the bondsman filed an ex parte motion for a warrant of arrest, expressing belief that Akan might jump bail. Later, the bondsman moved to be relieved from liability, alleging Akan had died in a skirmish with PC soldiers in Lanao on November 15, 1956. The trial court initially ordered the bondsman to pay the full bond amount but later, upon the bondsman’s motion supported by documentary evidence of Akan’s death, reduced the liability to P500.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly reduced the bondsman’s liability based on the presented evidence of the accused’s death.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s order and remanded the case. The legal logic is anchored on the rules of evidence governing the establishment of a fact as crucial as the death of a bailed accused. The bondsman’s claim relied on hearsay evidence: a letter from a mayor, an Arabic letter from a purported bandit leader, and a joint affidavit. These documents, while recited in the court order as stating the fact of death, are inadmissible to conclusively prove such fact. Competent and admissible evidence, such as the direct testimony under oath of the authors of those documents or other primary evidence, is required for judicial determination. The Court emphasized that the alleged death, if true, would extinguish the bondsman’s obligation, as its duty is to produce the accused’s person. However, this critical fact must be established in a manner conforming to the rules of evidence. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial court to receive proper evidence on the fact of death and to render a new judgment accordingly.