G.R. No. L-14457; June 30, 1961
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. OTIAK OMAL (accused), LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC., surety-appellee.

FACTS

Otiak Omal, charged with robbery in band, was released on a P10,000 bail bond posted by Luzon Surety Company, Inc. On August 10, 1956, Omal was rearrested on a separate charge of rape. On August 23, 1956, he was placed under the custody of the Provincial Governor pending a proposed amicable settlement. On December 12, 1956, the Governor ordered subordinates to bring Omal home due to reported trouble; Omal subsequently disappeared with these emissaries.
The surety filed an ex-parte motion for withdrawal of the bond and to be relieved of responsibility only on December 20, 1957, over a year after Omal’s rearrest and subsequent disappearance. The surety argued that the escape was facilitated by the negligence of the Provincial Warden and Governor, making its performance under the bond impossible. The State opposed, contending the surety chose to continue its liability by not seeking cancellation upon Omal’s rearrest.

ISSUE

Whether the negligence of government officials (the Provincial Warden and Governor) in facilitating the accused’s escape exonerates the surety from its obligations under the bail bond.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order cancelling the bond. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a surety is the “jailer of the accused” and bears primary responsibility for the accused’s custody. This duty is continuous until the bond is legally cancelled or the surety is discharged. The Court cited People vs. Tuising, which holds that the surety’s authority is equivalent to the government’s authority for preventive imprisonment, imposing an inevitable obligation to keep the accused under surveillance.
While performance of a bond can be rendered impossible by an act of the obligee (the government), such circumstance does not automatically discharge the surety. The surety has a concomitant duty to promptly inform the court of such an event to seek appropriate action. Here, the surety failed to act when Omal was rearrested in August 1956 and only moved for cancellation over a year later, after his escape. By its silence and inaction following the rearrest, the surety was presumed to have chosen to continue its liability. The Court distinguished this case from People vs. De la Cruz, where sureties were discharged because they promptly informed the court of the accused’s arrest by other authorities, and the court impliedly acquiesced. Furthermore, the record lacked evidence that the surety exerted all possible efforts to recapture Omal; in fact, Omal later surrendered in November 1958, proving rearrest was possible. The surety was thus equally chargeable with negligence for allowing the irregular official conduct to persist without timely judicial intervention.