G.R. No. L-5200
VICENTE BANDOY and VICENTA SALAMANCA, plaintiff-appellants, vs. THE JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LA LAGUNA and THE SHERIFF OF THE SAME PROVINCE, defendants-appellees.
December 17, 1909

FACTS:
Felix de Lagrimas was convicted of allanamiento de morada, sentenced to two months and one day imprisonment, and a fine of P260. He appealed the decision. To secure his provisional liberty during the appeal, Vicente Bandoy and Vicenta Salamanca posted a bail bond for P1,000. This bond included a condition that Lagrimas “will pay any fine that the court upon appeals may impose upon him.”

The Supreme Court affirmed Lagrimas’ conviction. He subsequently surrendered himself and served his prison sentence. He then offered to suffer subsidiary imprisonment to liquidate the P260 fine, but this offer was not accepted by the authorities, and he was released after serving his main sentence. The provincial fiscal moved to execute the bail bond against Bandoy and Salamanca for the P260 fine, alleging Lagrimas’ insolvency. The Judge of First Instance granted the motion and ordered the execution of the bond.

Bandoy and Salamanca filed a petition challenging the order, arguing that the Penal Code allowed for subsidiary imprisonment for fines (Art. 50 in connection with Art. 49) and that Section 67 of General Orders No. 58, which prescribes the form of a bail bond, did not include liability for fines. They also asserted their willingness to surrender Lagrimas for subsidiary imprisonment. The Judge denied their petition, holding that the judgment, having been affirmed, must be executed in all its parts. Bandoy and Salamanca appealed this decision.

ISSUE:
Can a bail bond legally include a condition making the bondsmen liable for the fine imposed on the accused, beyond ensuring the accused’s physical appearance and surrender for the execution of sentence?

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the condition in the bail bond requiring Vicente Bandoy and Vicenta Salamanca to pay the fine, in addition to ensuring the physical appearance of the accused, Felix de Lagrimas, was void and without effect.

The Court emphasized that Section 67 of General Orders No. 58 prescribes the form of a bail bond, which only obligates the bondsmen to ensure the accused’s appearance, amenability to court orders and processes, and surrender for judgment and execution of sentence. The law does not authorize the imposition of additional or different obligations on bondsmen. To allow such additional conditions would potentially lead to the imposition of excessive bail, which is prohibited by law (Philippine Bill, Sec. 5; Act of Congress of July 1, 1902).

When the form of a bond is prescribed by law, it must be followed in substance, and authorities cannot vary its terms to impose greater obligations on the defendant and his bondsmen. Since the bondsmen, Vicente Bandoy and Vicenta Salamanca, fulfilled their legal obligation by delivering Felix de Lagrimas to the custody of the court for him to serve his prison sentence, they were relieved of all further obligations under the bond.

Therefore, the judgment of the lower court ordering the execution of the bond against Vicente Bandoy and Vicenta Salamanca was reversed.