G.R. No. L-47309. January 30, 1982.
Belfast Surety and Insurance Company, Inc., thru its Vice-President and General Manager Mauro T. Allarde, petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines, and the Hon. Pedro N. Lagui, Presiding Judge, Circuit Criminal Court, Fifth Judicial District, San Fernando, Pampanga, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Belfast Surety posted a P20,000 bail bond for accused Allan Pangilinan in a murder case. During trial on April 29, 1976, Pangilinan failed to appear despite notice. The respondent judge issued an order forfeiting the bond, directing the surety to produce the accused and show cause within thirty days why judgment should not be rendered on the bond. A similar order was issued after another non-appearance on May 10, 1976. Subsequently, the prosecution rested, and all accused filed a demurrer to evidence. On May 31, 1976, the court granted the demurrer and acquitted all accused, ordering the cancellation of the bail bonds for the other accused but notably not for Pangilinan’s bond.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to render a judgment of forfeiture against the surety after it had issued an order acquitting the principal accused.

RULING

No. The trial court lost jurisdiction to forfeit the bond upon the acquittal of the accused. The legal logic is clear: a bail bond is an accessory obligation contingent upon the principal obligation of the accused to appear before the court. Once the principal case is terminated by a final judgment of acquittal, the accessory obligation is extinguished. The court’s order of May 31, 1976, acquitting all accused was a final disposition of the criminal case. The subsequent judgment on June 29, 1976, against the surety was void for lack of jurisdiction, as the court had already divested itself of authority over the case. The acquittal order, though it did not explicitly cancel Pangilinan’s bond, operated to discharge the bond as a matter of law since the very purpose of the bond—to secure the accused’s presence during trial—ceased with the termination of the proceedings. The court’s attempt to later enforce the forfeiture was a grave abuse of discretion. While appeal is generally the remedy from a forfeiture judgment, certiorari is proper here due to the jurisdictional defect and because the trial court’s issuance of a writ of execution rendered appeal inadequate. The writs are granted, annulling the forfeiture judgment and related orders.