G.R. No. L-25224. April 29, 1977.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TARASA SOLIMAN, ET AL., accused, CENTRAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., bondmen-appellee.

FACTS

Central Surety and Insurance Co. posted surety bonds totaling P60,000.00 for the provisional liberty of twelve accused charged with unlawful possession of cigarettes. When the case was called for arraignment and trial on July 15, 1964, all accused failed to appear. The trial court ordered the confiscation of the bonds, gave the surety 30 days to show cause, and ordered the arrest of the accused. The surety’s motions to lift the confiscation and for extensions of time to produce the accused were denied. Despite further opportunities, the surety failed to produce the accused. Consequently, on June 8, 1965, the court rendered a final judgment against the surety for the full bond amount of P60,000.00, and a writ of execution was subsequently issued.
After the writ was served, the surety filed a “Motion for Partial Remittance,” requesting a reduction of its liability to 5% of the bond, claiming it had exerted all efforts to locate the accused but failed. The Provincial Fiscal opposed, arguing the judgment was final and executory and that the accused had never been apprehended. Nevertheless, the trial court, in an Order dated August 4, 1965, reduced the surety’s liability to P6,000.00 (10% of the bond). The surety paid this reduced amount. The People’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in reducing the liability of the surety on the forfeited bail bonds after the judgment of forfeiture had become final and executory, and despite the non-surrender of the accused.

RULING

Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court set aside the orders reducing the liability and reinstated the judgment for the full bond amount. The legal logic is anchored on the settled doctrine governing the forfeiture of bail bonds under Section 15, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. While the Court has adopted a liberal policy, allowing complete or partial exoneration even after a final judgment and issuance of a writ of execution, this policy is strictly premised on the concurrent fulfillment of two indispensable conditions: (1) the production of the body of the accused, and (2) a satisfactory explanation for the accused’s initial failure to appear.
In this case, the surety miserably failed to meet the first and fundamental condition. The twelve accused were never surrendered to the court, leaving the criminal case unresolved. The surety’s proffered explanation—that it exercised all possible means to locate the accused—was couched in general terms and lacked adequate substantiation. The Court emphasized that the surety, aware its principals were Muslims from Jolo, assumed the risk and had a duty to exercise more than ordinary diligence in monitoring them to prevent flight. Its failure to do so warranted the full enforcement of its contractual obligation under the bond. Since the primary condition of producing the accused was not complied with, the liberal policy of reduction did not apply. The final judgment for the full amount must be executed.