G.R. No. 26886 , March 30, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. SILVESTRE LORREDO, VICTOR AMADOR, and CIRIACO MORALES

FACTS

Victor Amador and Ciriaco Morales (appellants) executed a bail bond for the temporary release of Silvestre Lorredo, who was accused of illegal possession of firearms. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Tayabas convicted Lorredo and sentenced him to pay a fine. On the same day the judgment was rendered, the appellants filed a motion to withdraw their bond and surrender the accused, citing difficulty in monitoring him as he resided in another town. The court did not act on this motion. Lorredo failed to pay the fine within the granted period, absconded, and could not be found. The court, upon the fiscal’s motion, issued a summons for the sureties to produce the accused. The sureties appeared but argued their bond was deemed cancelled due to the accused’s attorney’s offer to act as surety (an offer which was not accepted or acted upon by the court). The lower court subsequently declared the bond forfeited. The appellants filed motions for relief, which were denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in denying the sureties’ motions for relief from their obligation under the bail bond.
2. What are the proper procedural steps for the forfeiture and execution of a bail bond?

RULING

The Supreme Court MODIFIED the lower court’s order.

1. On the Procedure for Bond Forfeiture: The Court reiterated the established procedure from *United States vs. Carmen* (13 Phil. 455):
* Upon the defendant’s non-appearance after final sentence, the court shall record the fact.
* The court shall declare the bond forfeited.
* The sureties shall be notified and given a period (e.g., 30 days) to produce the defendant.
* If the defendant is not produced, the sureties shall be ordered to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against them for the bond amount.
* If no sufficient cause is shown, the court may render judgment against the sureties. A separate civil action is not necessary; a simple motion in the same criminal case suffices.

The Court held that an appeal from an order of forfeiture must be perfected within the unextendible 15-day period from notice of the order directing execution of the forfeiture judgment.

2. On the Liability of the Sureties: The appellants’ motion to withdraw the bond filed on the day of judgment was ineffective. A surety’s obligation under a bail bond continues until the defendant’s full compliance with the court’s judgment (i.e., payment of fine or service of sentence). The offer by the defendant’s attorney to act as surety did not automatically cancel the existing bond, as it was not accepted by the court. Therefore, the sureties remained liable.

3. On the Mitigation of Forfeiture: Applying the doctrine in *People vs. Reyes* (48 Phil. 139), and considering that the accused had subsequently paid the fine imposed (thus satisfying the judgment), the Supreme Court found it just to mitigate the penalty on the bond. The Court modified the lower court’s order and declared only one-half (½) of the bond amount forfeited.

DISPOSITIVE:
The appealed order was modified. One-half of the bail bond filed by appellants Victor Amador and Ciriaco Morales is declared forfeited. Costs against the appellants.