G.R. No. 1234 : May 6, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. E.S. LEWIS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant-appellant, E.S. Lewis, was convicted of larceny by the Court of First Instance of Manila and sentenced to eight months of presidio correccional. He appealed the conviction and was admitted to bail by the trial court upon furnishing a bond. The appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Government filed a motion requesting that the sureties on the bail bond be required to produce the accused before the Supreme Court within a set period, and for the bond to be forfeited upon their failure. In response, counsel for the appellant filed a separate motion, stating under oath that the appellant had left Manila for parts unknown and was likely beyond the court’s jurisdiction, and moved to suspend all proceedings during his absence.

ISSUE:
Whether the Government can compel the sureties to produce the accused before the Supreme Court prior to the hearing of the appeal and have the bail bond forfeited for his failure to appear at that stage.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court denied both motions. The Court held that the presence of the appellant is not necessary for the hearing and disposition of the appeal. The condition of the bail bond, as provided under General Orders No. 58, Section 65, does not require the accused to appear in the appellate court before or during the hearing. The undertaking of the sureties is specifically that the accused will pay any fine imposed, surrender himself to serve the judgment rendered, or appear for a new trial if the case is remanded. A breach of the bond’s condition, which would justify forfeiture, cannot occur until after the appellate court renders its judgment. The Government’s motion for forfeiture was therefore premature. The Court also noted that the sureties retain the power to prevent the accused from leaving the jurisdiction if they deem it necessary, and the court may increase the bond if found insufficient.