G.R. No. L-3026, March 25, 1911
THE UNITED STATES vs. MELCHOR BABASA, ET AL.

FACTS

On July 8, 1902, Pedro Alvarez (alias Araro) was charged with robbery in an armed band with murder, a capital offense. During trial, Alvarez applied for bail, citing health reasons and witness unavailability. With the Acting Attorney-General’s consent, the court granted bail at $10,000 gold, with Melchor Babasa and Apolinio Belmonte as sureties. Alvarez failed to appear at the next hearing on October 15, 1902. The court forfeited the bond and ordered proceedings against the sureties. On December 20, 1904, it was reported that Alvarez had been killed in an encounter with the Constabulary. Babasa moved to declare the bond void, which the trial court denied. Babasa died, and his wife, as administratrix of his estate, was substituted. The sureties appealed, arguing the bond was void.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to admit Alvarez to bail for a capital offense.
2. Whether the death of the principal (Alvarez) before judgment on the bond discharges the sureties from their obligation.

RULING

1. Yes, the trial court had jurisdiction to admit to bail. While Section 5 of the Act of July 1, 1902, and Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that persons charged with capital offenses are generally not bailable, they allow bail in the discretion of the court before conviction if proof of guilt is not evident or the presumption of guilt is not strong. The court’s exercise of that discretion, even if arguably erroneous, was within its jurisdiction. The bond was therefore valid.
2. No, the death of the principal does not discharge the sureties. Under Section 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, once the bond is forfeited due to the accused’s non-appearance, the fiscal must proceed against the bail. The statute does not provide for discharge of the sureties upon the death of the principal after forfeiture. While some U.S. decisions hold otherwise based on different statutes, the specific wording of the local law and the need to ensure the appearance of the accused compel the conclusion that the sureties remain liable. Any relief on equitable grounds must come from legislative action, not judicial intervention.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.