GR L 6239; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6239; April 30, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANTONIO TAN, accused, MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The accused, Antonio Tan, failed to appear for his arraignment and trial on August 21, 1951. Consequently, the court ordered the confiscation of his bond, for which the Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. was the surety. The surety was given time to produce the accused and explain, but it failed to do both. On November 6, 1951, judgment was rendered against the surety to pay the government P2,000. On May 3, 1952, the surety moved to surrender the accused and withdraw the bond, but the court denied the motion. The surety filed a motion for reconsideration on June 2, 1952, alleging it had spent large sums to secure the accused’s arrest. The accused pleaded guilty on July 9, 1952, and was sentenced. On September 4, 1952, the court amended its judgment, reducing the surety’s liability from P2,000 to P200. The People appealed, arguing the judgment had become final and executory, especially since a writ of execution had been issued.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court had the authority to reduce the surety’s liability under the bond after the judgment of confiscation had become final and executory.
RULING
Yes, the trial court had the authority to reduce the surety’s liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the order reducing the liability from P2,000 to P200. The Court explained that the obligation of a bondsman before conviction is to ensure the accused answers the complaint or information in court. Failure to produce the accused at a set date does not constitute a complete and irrevocable breach, as the bondsman may later arrest and surrender the accused, thereby ultimately complying with the obligation. The judgment of confiscation is merely provisional, contingent on the bondsman’s eventual production of the accused. If the bondsman succeeds in surrendering the accused, the court has the power to modify the previous judgment, even after the ordinary period for finality has passed. In this case, since the surety ultimately secured the accused’s arrest and surrender, the court had jurisdiction to modify the judgment. The order was affirmed with costs de oficio.