GR L 3411; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3411 May 30, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ENGRACIO ARLATINCO, accused. EUNICIANO RODRIGUEZ and NORBERTO CORPUZ, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
In Criminal Case No. 545 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Engracio Arlatinco was accused of damage to property through reckless imprudence. The appellees, along with others, filed a P2,000 bond for his provisional liberty. The accused failed to appear for his arraignment on November 14, 1947. The court ordered the bondsmen to explain why their bond should not be confiscated. After finding their explanations unsatisfactory, the court granted extensions to produce the accused, ultimately ordering the confiscation of the bond on January 23, 1948, with execution for P1,000. The accused voluntarily surrendered on January 22, 1948. The bondsmen filed petitions to lift the confiscation order and writ of execution. Despite these petitions, the Provincial Sheriff of Zambales advertised and sold the properties covered by the bond on March 31, 1948. On March 9, 1948, the accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced. On April 2, 1948, the trial court granted the bondsmen’s motion and set aside the confiscation order and writ of execution. The Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed a motion on June 4, 1948, to set aside the April 2 order, which was denied on June 23, 1948. The Fiscal appealed.
ISSUE
The principal issue is whether the trial court had the right or authority to set aside its order of confiscation and the writ of execution after the bond had been executed and the properties sold.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the trial court lost control over the order of confiscation and writ of execution once they became final and were executed through the sale of the properties. Citing U.S. vs. Painaga and Anglo-American law, the Court ruled it is too late to set aside a confiscation after the bond has been executed and the properties sold. The Court found the trial court’s order of April 2, 1948, void and in excess of jurisdiction. However, the Court dismissed the appeal because the Provincial Fiscal’s motion to set aside the April 2 order was filed on June 4, 1948, beyond the reglementary period, making that order final and depriving the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the appeal on its merits.