G.R. No. L-13665; September 24, 1959
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIPE BUSTAMANTE, accused, PLARIDEL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., bondsman-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Felipe Bustamante y Baltazar, failed to appear in the Court of First Instance of Manila on October 24, 1956, the date set for the reading of his sentence. The court issued an order for his arrest and the confiscation of his P1,000.00 bail bond posted by the bondsman-appellant, Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. The bondsman filed petitions for extensions of time to produce the accused. The court initially denied a petition on November 27, 1956, but upon reconsideration, granted a 30-day extension starting December 15, 1956. Before this extension expired, the bondsman filed another motion for extension on January 14, 1957, citing difficulties in locating the accused in Zambales. This motion was denied. On January 21, 1957, the court issued an order entering judgment against the bond. A subsequent petition to hold this order in abeyance was denied on January 31, 1957. The bondsman finally apprehended the accused and delivered him to the Manila Police Department on February 3, 1957. The bondsman then notified the court and asked for reconsideration of the execution order, which was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the court a quo erred in refusing to grant the bondsman-appellant relief from liability upon the bond after the accused was eventually apprehended and surrendered.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of execution but modified the bondsman’s liability. The Court held that while the accused was eventually captured and surrendered through the bondsman’s efforts, this occurred after the order of confiscation and forfeiture had become final. As a rule, the court has no power to entirely discharge the sureties after the 30-day period to produce the accused has elapsed; it can only mitigate their liability. Citing consistent jurisprudence, the Court explained its liberal policy in mitigating liability in appropriate cases. The reasons for this liberality are: (1) the State’s ultimate desire is the enforcement of the sentence, not monetary gain from the bond’s forfeiture; (2) strict enforcement would lead bondsmen to demand higher rates, making bail difficult to obtain; and (3) strictness would make bondsmen indifferent to helping the State arrest defendants. Finding that the bondsman-appellant was not entirely to blame under the circumstances, the Supreme Court reduced its liability on the bail bond from P1,000.00 to P500.00. The order appealed from was thus affirmed as modified, without costs.