G.R. No. L-64157-58 April 29, 1987
PHILIPPINE PHOENIX SURETY AND INSURANCE INC., petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance Inc. issued personal bail bonds for accused Remberto F. Castro in four criminal cases before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Castro, however, was under military detention at Camp Crame by virtue of an Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO). Despite the posted bonds, Castro was not released from military custody. On June 4, 1980, Castro escaped from his military escorts while en route to a court hearing and subsequently fled the country. The cases against Castro and a co-accused, Winston Dulay, were later consolidated and filed before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan ordered the surety to produce the accused. Upon the surety’s failure to do so, the court declared the bonds forfeited and eventually granted the prosecution’s motion for judgment on the bonds for their full amount. The surety filed motions for reconsideration and for cancellation of Castro’s bonds, arguing they were void from inception as the ASSO rendered the accused’s provisional release impossible. The Sandiganbayan denied these motions.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for cancellation of the bail bonds and in ordering their forfeiture.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions. The Court explained that the purpose of bail is to secure the accused’s appearance at trial, and upon posting a bond, the surety becomes the legal jailer of the accused, charged with ensuring his presence before the court. Forfeiture of a bond for the accused’s non-appearance rests on the sound discretion of the court. While a surety may be relieved from its obligation if performance is rendered impossible by an act of the obligee (the Government), the principle of estoppel barred the petitioner’s claim in this case. The Court noted that the surety, through its agent, had full knowledge of Castro’s military detention under the ASSO at the time it issued the bonds for a valuable premium. By voluntarily assuming the risk with such knowledge, the surety cannot later disclaim liability. The surety’s duty to surveil the accused and prevent him from leaving the jurisdiction continued until the bond was properly discharged. Consequently, the surety was deemed to have assumed responsibility for Castro’s escape and flight. The Court concluded that while courts are often liberal in considering explanations for a surety’s failure to produce an accused, such liberality cannot absolve a surety from an obligation it freely and knowingly undertook. No grave abuse of discretion was found in the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the motions and its order of forfeiture.