G.R. No. L-5256 November 27, 1953
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LEE DIET, accused. RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, bondsman-appellee.

FACTS

On May 25, 1951, Lee Diet was charged before the Justice of the Peace Court of Cotabato with uttering false U.S. gold coins. A warrant for his arrest was issued, and bail was set at P12,000, which was posted by the Rizal Surety and Insurance Company, securing his release. The preliminary investigation was set for June 14, 1951. On that date, the accused failed to appear. Counsel for the surety informed the court that the accused’s whereabouts were unknown because he had escaped three days earlier while under the custody of the Philippine Constabulary. The accused had been re-arrested on June 8, 1951, by constabulary agents for questioning regarding alleged subversive activities, and he escaped during that detention. The Justice of the Peace initially declared the bond forfeited but later reconsidered and remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Cotabato. On July 2, 1951, the Provincial Fiscal filed an information against the accused. The arraignment and trial were set for August 2, 1951, but the accused again failed to appear. The Provincial Fiscal moved for confiscation of the bond. Counsel for the surety objected, citing the same reason for non-appearance. The court denied the motion, accepting the surety’s reason as satisfactory and relieving it from liability. The People appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the surety (Rizal Surety and Insurance Company) is excused from its obligation under the bail bond because the accused, while out on bail, was picked up by constabulary authorities for questioning regarding subversive activities and thereafter escaped from their custody.

RULING

The order appealed from is reversed. The surety is not excused from its obligation. The surety, as the jailer of the accused, has the duty to keep the accused under surveillance until the bond is cancelled or the surety is discharged according to the Rules of Court. The procedure for discharge is clear: the bond shall be cancelled and sureties discharged (a) upon surrender of the defendant; (b) where the defendant is re-arrested or ordered into custody on the same charge; (c) where the defendant is discharged, acquitted, convicted and surrendered, or (d) where the defendant dies. While a surety may be discharged if performance is rendered impossible by an act of God, the obligee, or the law, the surety must inform the court of such an event to obtain appropriate action. Here, the surety did not take any steps to inform the court of the accused’s re-arrest when it occurred; it only gave notice when the court ordered the accused’s appearance for arraignment or trial. Since the bond remained valid and binding, and the surety kept silent, it is presumed that the surety chose to continue its liability. The subsequent re-arrest of the principal on another charge does not automatically discharge the bail; if the accused escapes while in custody on another charge, the bail remains bound to produce him. This case is distinguished from People vs. Mamerto de la Cruz (93 Phil., 487), where the sureties informed the court of the accused’s arrest and confinement in another province and impliedly asked for discharge, and the court acquiesced by dealing directly with the prisoner. No such step was taken by the surety in this case.