GR 44518; (November, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44518; November 23, 1938
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. YU GUIOC LAM (alias Yu Kim Lam), defendant. THE VISAYAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CORPORATION, surety-appellant.
FACTS
The Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation posted a bail bond for the provisional release of accused Yu Guioc Lam. The accused failed to appear at trial on June 19, 1935, prompting the court to order his arrest and confiscation of the bond. On July 10, 1935, the surety produced the accused in court and moved for the lifting of the confiscation order and cancellation of its bond, alleging the accused offered to file a new bond through another company. The court found the accused’s explanation for his initial non-appearance satisfactory and lifted the confiscation order but did not cancel the surety’s bond because the new bond had not yet been approved. When the case was reset for trial on July 29, 1935, the accused again failed to appear, leading the court to order his arrest and confiscation of the same bond. The surety appealed the denial of its motion to be relieved from liability.
ISSUE
Whether the surety is relieved from liability on its bail bond by merely producing the accused in court and requesting cancellation of the bond, without the court’s acceptance of the surrender and cancellation of the bond, and without notice to the prosecuting attorney.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order, holding that the surety was not relieved from liability. Citing People vs. Lorredo, the Court ruled that to be discharged from liability, a surety must: (1) notify the prosecuting attorney of the surrender of the accused and the petition for release from the bond; (2) clearly call the court’s attention to the accused’s presence and the intention to surrender him; and (3) obtain the court’s acceptance of the surrender and an express order discharging the bond. Mere production of the accused in court, without compliance with these requirements, is insufficient. Since the surety did not notify the fiscal and the court did not accept the surrender or cancel the bond, the bond remained in force. The surety’s failure to produce the accused at the subsequent trial date constituted a second breach of the bond’s conditions.
AI Generated by Armztrong.