G.R. No. L-20138, November 27, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINADOR SEGARINO Y BORGA and GREGORIO DE GUZMAN Y GABRIEL, accused, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, bondsman-appellant.

FACTS

In Criminal Case No. 58507 for theft before the Court of First Instance of Manila, accused Gregorio de Guzman failed to appear at the trial scheduled for August 2, 1961. A family member presented a motion for postponement, alleging his sickness, supported by an unsworn medical certificate. The court deemed the motion “sham,” ordered a new warrant of arrest, and confiscated the P2,000.00 bail bond posted by Liberty Insurance Corporation. A policeman sent to arrest the accused reported he was not at his residence. On August 9, 1961, the bonding company received the confiscation order.
Within the 30-day period to produce the accused (due to expire on September 9, 1961), the bonding company filed a motion on September 6, 1961, for an extension. It stated the accused was “already under custody and pending transfer to the City Jail” and that a certificate of confinement had been requested but not yet issued. The court denied the motion on September 12, 1961, citing no proof of capture, and ordered execution against the bond. On September 15, 1961, the bonding company filed a motion to lift the confiscation, attaching a police certificate showing the accused was confined in the City Jail. The court, on September 19, 1961, accepted the surrender but denied cancellation of the bond. A motion for reconsideration was filed, explaining that the accused had been notified of the trial, failed to appear due to ear ailments, and was apprehended on September 4, 1961, but the confinement certificate was delayed. The court denied reconsideration, noting the bondsman’s mere notification was insufficient and disbelieving the sickness claim due to the unverified certificate and the accused’s absence from his house. The bonding company appealed the execution order.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly refused to lift the forfeiture of the bail bond and ordered execution against the bondsman.

RULING

Yes, but with modification reducing the bondsman’s liability. The Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture but reduced the liability to one-half of the bond amount.
The Court applied Section 15, Rule 110 (now Rule 114) of the Rules of Court, which requires that within 30 days after forfeiture, bondsmen must: (a) produce the body of the accused or give reasons for non-production, and (b) explain satisfactorily the accused’s initial non-appearance. Failure in both requisites warrants judgment against the bondsmen.
Here, the bondsman failed to satisfy both requisites. First, it did not produce the accused within the 30-day period. Its claim of custody was unsubstantiated during that period, as it merely asserted apprehension without proof, and could have physically produced the accused if truly in custody. Second, the explanation for the initial non-appearance was unsatisfactory. The bondsman’s undertaking is not merely to notify the accused but to ensure his bodily presence in court, akin to the state’s authority to hold the accused. The alleged sickness was rightly rejected by the trial court due to the unsworn medical certificate and the fact that the accused was not found at home when sought. The question of satisfactory explanation lies within the trial court’s discretion, and the Supreme Court found no reason to overturn it.
However, the Court granted partial remission of liability. While the bondsman’s explanation was unsatisfactory, the accused was eventually surrendered. Citing precedents, the Court noted that partial remission may be granted after tardy surrender, with the extent depending on circumstances. In cases where no satisfactory explanation was given, reductions to one-half of the bond have been applied. Considering the specifics here, the Court deemed it just to reduce the liability to one-half of the P2,000.00 bond. Thus, the order was modified accordingly.