G.R. No. L-4743-45; February 27, 1953
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMINGOL HANASAN, accused. EUSTAQUIO TUGADE, NICOLAS EDIG, and JOSE BAGION, bondsmen-appellants.

FACTS

Armingol Hanasan was charged with estafa through falsification of public documents in three criminal complaints filed in the municipal court of Davao. He was provisionally released upon posting a bail bond with two sets of sureties. Apprehensive that Hanasan might jump bail after being detained for another crime (criminal abduction) in a different municipality, some of the co-sureties (not the appellants) surrendered him to the court and petitioned for his commitment to custody and the cancellation of their bond. The municipal judge ordered Hanasan jailed. Subsequently, the judge ordered Hanasan’s release again upon Teofilo Flores signing a separate bail bond for P13,000, intended to replace the sureties who had petitioned for cancellation. The judge believed the appellants (the sureties who did not join the surrender petition) remained bound and became co-sureties of Flores. After his release, Hanasan jumped bail. The Court of First Instance of Davao, where the cases were forwarded, declared the bond forfeited, denied the bondsmen’s petition for discharge from liability, and ordered the bond executed. Appellants Eustaquio Tugade, Nicolas Edig, and Jose Bagion appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the appellants (sureties who did not participate in surrendering the accused) were discharged from liability under their bail bond upon the surrender and incarceration of the accused by their co-sureties.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court revoked the appealed decision and order insofar as the appellants were concerned, declaring them released from their undertaking as sureties. The Court held that under Section 16(a) and (b) of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, a bail bond is cancelled and the sureties discharged from liability when the accused is surrendered to the court and ordered into custody on the same charge. This discharge applies to all sureties on the bond, regardless of which surety effected the surrender, as the act of surrender by one surety is presumed to be done in the interest of all co-sureties. Once the accused is in custody, the bondsmen lose control over him and cannot be held responsible for his appearance. The Court cited the doctrine in State vs. Doyal and Nichols vs. United States, which support the discharge of all sureties upon surrender by one. The Court rejected the prosecution’s estoppel argument, finding no evidence that appellants had knowledge of the withdrawal or substitution of their co-sureties by Teofilo Flores. Acts performed under an erroneous assumption that the bond was still in force cannot serve as a basis for estoppel. The decision and order were to stand only as regards the surety Teofilo Flores.