G.R. No. 8348 ; April 29, 1955
R. ALONSO BAGTAS, recurrente, vs. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION (Segunda Division), recurrida.

FACTS

On April 15, 1953, the petitioner, R. Alonso Bagtas, was convicted of estafa by the Court of First Instance of Manila in Criminal Case No. 15993. He appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 11278-R). On October 6, 1953, the accused was released on provisional liberty under a bail bond of P40,000, posted by the Union Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. On October 29, 1953, upon motion of the Solicitor General due to the inability to transcribe the testimonies of witnesses Lourdes Montañer and Napoleon Mateo (because the stenographer who took them had died), the Court of Appeals resolved to grant a new trial before the same judge if possible, otherwise to remand the case to the court of origin (Manila) for a new trial under Act No. 3110 . On December 7, 1953, the case record was returned to the Court of First Instance of Manila. Subsequently, on January 14, 1954, the bonding company, Union Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., filed a motion with the Court of Appeals seeking the cancellation of the bail bond because one of the sureties had withdrawn his counter-bond. On February 10, 1954, the Court of Appeals approved the cancellation of the bond, and on June 26, 1954, it ordered the petitioner’s commitment to the Muntinlupa prison. The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals no longer had jurisdiction to cancel the bail bond after the case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to cancel the bail bond after it had remanded the case to the Court of First Instance for a new trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The ruling held that the bonding company, as the surety, had the right to arrest and surrender the accused to the authorities at any time to relieve itself of liability under the bond. This right is an incident of the bail bond agreement. The Court cited American precedents, which are influential in Philippine criminal procedure, establishing that a surety may arrest the accused personally or through an agent, at any time, to deliver the accused to the authorities. The legal custody of the accused is transferred from the government to the surety. The surety’s act of surrendering the accused to the Chief of Police of Manila and signifying the withdrawal of the bond discharged its responsibility, regardless of any subsequent court order cancelling the bond. Therefore, even if the Court of Appeals’ order cancelling the bond were set aside for lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner had no right to demand that the bond remain in force or to be released on provisional liberty because the surety had already surrendered him and refused to continue as his custodian. The motion for cancellation filed with the court was merely a formality. From the moment of surrender, the accused was legally under detention.