G.R. No. L-6713; April 29, 1957
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RICARDO DAISIN, accused. PEOPLE’S SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., movant-bondsmen-appellee.

FACTS

Ricardo Daisin was charged with estafa before the Court of First Instance of Cotabato. After his failure to appear for arraignment and trial despite due notice, the court, on August 27, 1952, ordered his arrest and declared that the P5,000 bond posted by him and the People’s Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. for his provisional release would be confiscated if his body was not produced within thirty (30) days. Upon motion by the prosecution due to the non-production of the accused within that period, the court issued an order on November 18, 1952, sentencing the surety company to pay the Government the sum of P5,000 and all costs incident to its collection. No appeal was taken from this order. After the period to appeal had expired, the surety company located Daisin in Baguio, turned him over to the Manila Police Department, and had him confined in the Manila City Jail. On December 19, 1952, the company filed a manifestation stating this and that arrangements were being made to transport the accused to Cotabato for surrender to the court. Subsequently, on January 27, 1953, it filed a motion (dated December 24, 1952) stating it was surrendering the body of the accused and praying for the lifting of the execution order and cancellation of the bond. Acting on this motion, the lower court issued an order on March 11, 1953, setting aside its judgment of November 18, 1952, and, in lieu thereof, imposing on the surety company a reduced penalty of P500 plus incidental collection expenses, citing equity and justice and the company’s efforts and expenses in arresting the accused. The prosecution appealed, contending that a final order of confiscation cannot be modified to reduce the surety’s liability.

ISSUE

Whether a court can reduce the liability of a surety under a bail bond after the order of confiscation has become final.

RULING

Yes, the court can reduce the liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order reducing the surety’s liability from P5,000 to P500. The Court held that while an order of confiscation cannot be modified after the bond has been executed and the properties sold (as stated in People vs. Arlantico), such was not the case here. The Court reiterated the doctrine established in People vs. Reyes and People vs. Calabon that, even after forfeiture, if the purpose of the recognizance is accomplished by placing the principal in prison to serve sentence, the bondsmen may be relieved from part of their liability according to the merits of the case. The philosophy behind this liberality, as explained in People vs. Puyal, is threefold: (1) the State’s ultimate desire is not monetary gain but the enforcement of the sentence, and the surrender of the accused achieves this goal; (2) strict enforcement would lead bondsmen to demand higher rates, making bail difficult to obtain; and (3) mitigation encourages bondsmen to help the State in securing the arrest of defendants. Since the surety company succeeded in arresting and surrendering the accused, the reduction of liability was proper.