GR L 2155; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2155; May 23, 1951
The People of the Philippines, appellant, vs. Makadato Alamada, accused, Walia Usong and Latip Kusa, bondsmen-appellees.
FACTS
On December 15, 1947, in the case of People vs. Makadato Alamada for theft, the accused, who was on bail, failed to appear for trial despite proper notice. Upon motion of the fiscal, the court confiscated the P2,000 bond and gave bondsmen Walia Usong and Latip Kusa thirty days to produce the accused and explain their failure. After the thirty-day period expired without any explanation from the bondsmen, the fiscal moved for judgment. On January 31, 1948, the court issued an order directing the bondsmen to pay the bond amount plus interest and expenses. The bondsmen were notified of this order on February 4, 1948. On February 10, 1948, the bondsmen appeared, explained their failure, and surrendered the accused. They alleged under oath that the offended party, Mrs. Beltran, and Datu Macabañgan Alamada had represented to them and the accused that they would assume responsibility for dismissing the case, leading them to believe in good faith that the case was already quashed until they received the court’s order on February 2, 1948. The judge found this explanation satisfactory and, on February 14, 1948, lifted the order of confiscation, overruling the fiscal’s opposition. The fiscal appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in lifting the order of confiscation of the bail bond after the expiration of the thirty-day period granted to the bondsmen.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the appealed order. It held that while courts are liberal in accepting the explanation of bondsmen in forfeiture proceedings, especially when the accused is produced, the trial judge had no power to discharge the sureties entirely after the thirty-day period had elapsed. Following the precedent in People vs. Calabon, the Court ruled that after the thirty-day period, a complete discharge may not be granted, but the court retains inherent discretionary power to relieve the bondsmen from a part of their liability according to the circumstances, particularly where the accused has been apprehended. Considering the bondsmen’s explanation and the surrender of the accused, the Supreme Court reduced the sureties’ monetary obligation from the full P2,000 bond to P200.