Facts:

This case, titled Vicente Bandoy and Vicenta Salamanca vs. The Judge of the Court of First Instance of La Laguna and the Sheriff of the Same Province, was decided on March 11, 1909, by the Philippine Supreme Court under G.R. No. 5200. The plaintiffs, Vicente Bandoy and Vicenta Salamanca, initiated an original action for mandamus against the judge and sheriff of La Laguna. The controversy arose when Felix de Lagrimas was convicted on September 9, 1907, for the crime of allanamiento de morada (housebreaking) and was sentenced to two months and one day of arresto mayor (minor imprisonment) in addition to a fine of P260. Following the conviction, de Lagrimas appealed to the Supreme Court, supported by a bond that was jointly signed by the plaintiffs, thereby acting as his sureties.

Once the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, de Lagrimas was turned over to the plaintiffs (his sureties) to serve his sentence, after which he was released without having paid the impo

...

Facts:

Background of the Criminal Case

• Felix de Lagrimas was convicted on September 9, 1907, for the crime of allanamiento de morada in the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Laguna.
• The sentence imposed on de Lagrimas was two months and one day of arresto mayor along with a fine of P260.
• In securing his appeal to the Supreme Court, de Lagrimas furnished a bond in the form required by law, which was signed by the plaintiffs, Vicente Bandoy and Vicenta Salamanaca, acting as sureties.

Post-Conviction Developments

• After the appeal bond was executed, the lower court’s judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and de Lagrimas was ordered to serve his sentence.
• De Lagrimas served his sentence by being confined in jail, and upon expiration of the arrest period, he was released.
• Despite his release, he never paid the fine imposed by the judgment.

Issuance of Execution and Subsequent Petition

• On November 23, 1908, following the failure to pay the fine, the lower court ordered an execution to issue against the sureties (the plaintiffs) to collect the unpaid fine.
• The sureties appeared before the court and sought the revocation of the execution order.
• Their petition for revocation was denied, prompting them to notify the court of their appeal against the said order.
• The Supreme Court, however, initially refused to admit the appeal from the execution order.

Statutory and Precedential Basis Cited

• Section 44 of General Orders No. 58 was cited, which permits an appeal from a final judgment or any order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the appellant.
• The court also referenced the case of Melchor Babasa vs. the judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas (12 Phil. Rep., 766) as having dealt with similar circumstances regarding the appeal of orders affecting the rights of sureties.
• Additional supporting cases, notably Molina vs. De la Riva, were cited to affirm the reviewability of lower court actions affecting sureties in both criminal and civil cases.

Issue:

• Whether the sureties (plaintiffs) are entitled to have the question of their liability under the appeal bond, specifically regarding the unpaid fine, argued and decided by the Supreme Court.
• Whether the refusal to admit the appeal from the execution order against the sureties violates the substantive rights safeguarded by Section 44 of General Orders No. 58.
• The extent to which precedent, particularly the ruling in Melchor Babasa, governs the present case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)