G.R. No. L-5794; July 23, 1953.
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Mamerto de la Cruz, defendant. Benigno Ilagan, Christopher Valencia and Timoteo Valencia, sureties-appellants.

FACTS

Mamerto de la Cruz was charged with theft of large cattle in the justice of the peace court of Tagkawayan, Quezon. On December 31, 1946, he posted a bail bond of P1,500 with appellants as sureties. After a preliminary investigation on January 2, 1947, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quezon. Meanwhile, on December 24, 1946, a warrant for de la Cruz’s arrest for another theft charge was issued by the justice of the peace of Paracale, Camarines Norte. Apprised of this, the sureties surrendered de la Cruz to the Mayor of Tagkawayan on January 14, 1947, who turned him over to the justice of the peace, who then delivered him to constabulary soldiers from Camarines Norte. Sergeant Agustin, the squad leader, issued a receipt undertaking to return de la Cruz to Tagkawayan after investigation in Camarines Norte. The CFI of Quezon, informed of de la Cruz’s detention in Camarines Norte, reset the case and sent subsequent notices directly to the authorities in Camarines Norte, bypassing the sureties. On February 26, 1947, de la Cruz escaped from the provincial jail in Daet, Camarines Norte. The CFI of Quezon only learned of the escape in December 1947. On January 10, 1949, the court ordered the sureties to show cause why the bail bond should not be forfeited, noting their earlier refusal to sign a subpoena on the ground they had withdrawn as sureties. The sureties appealed from the order to show cause and the denial of their motion to be discharged.

ISSUE

Whether the actions of the sureties, the court, and the government worked to cancel the bail bond or exonerate the sureties from liability.

RULING

Yes, the sureties are exonerated. The bail bond is a contract. The government, as obligee, through the acts of its judicial officers, made it impossible for the sureties to perform their obligation. By surrendering the accused to the authorities of Camarines Norte upon lawful demand, the sureties substantially complied with their duty. The court, upon learning of the detention in another province, dealt directly with the authorities there and bypassed the sureties, leading them to believe their obligation was terminated. This conduct of the court constituted an act of the obligee that rendered performance by the sureties impossible. The principle from United States vs. Bonoan applies: the government is estopped from enforcing the forfeiture when its own act places the principal beyond the reach and control of the sureties. The formal procedure for surrender and discharge under the Rules of Court is inapplicable where the prisoner is no longer at the sureties’ disposal. The orders of the lower court are set aside and the sureties are discharged from liability.