Title
Bandoy vs. Judge of the 1st Instance of La Laguna
Case
G.R. No. 5200
Decision Date
Dec 17, 1909
Felix de Lagrimas convicted of trespassing; bondsmen appealed execution for unpaid fine, citing statutory bond limits. Supreme Court ruled bondsmen not liable, voiding unauthorized fine payment condition.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 5200)

Facts:

  1. Criminal Conviction and Appeal:

    • On September 9, 1907, Felix de Lagrimas was convicted by the Court of First Instance of La Laguna for the crime of allanamiento de morada (trespassing). He was sentenced to two months and one day of imprisonment, a fine of P260, and payment of costs.
    • Lagrimas appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and was granted bail pending appeal.
  2. Bail Bond Execution:

    • To secure his liberty during the appeal, Lagrimas, along with plaintiffs Vicente Bandoy and Vicenta Salamanca, executed a bond on September 14, 1907. The bond stated that Lagrimas would pay any fine imposed by the appellate court or surrender himself to serve the penalty.
  3. Supreme Court Decision:

    • On August 15, 1908, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for execution of the sentence. Lagrimas surrendered himself and served the imprisonment term. He also offered to serve subsidiary imprisonment for the unpaid fine, but this was rejected by the authorities.
  4. Motion for Execution Against Bondsmen:

    • The fiscal of La Laguna filed a motion to enforce the bond against Bandoy and Salamanca for the unpaid fine of P260, citing Section 65 of General Orders, No. 58. The lower court granted the motion and issued an execution order against the bondsmen.
  5. Bondsmen’s Petition:

    • Bandoy and Salamanca filed a petition arguing that:
      • The fine should be converted into subsidiary imprisonment under Article 50 of the Penal Code.
      • Section 76 of General Orders, No. 58 does not authorize execution against bondsmen for unpaid fines.
      • The execution order deprived them of due process and was unconstitutional.
  6. Lower Court’s Denial:

    • The lower court denied the petition, stating that the judgment had been affirmed by the Supreme Court and must be executed in full.

Issue:

  1. Whether the bondsmen (Bandoy and Salamanca) are liable to pay the fine imposed on Lagrimas under the terms of the bail bond.
  2. Whether the execution order against the bondsmen for the unpaid fine is valid under the law.
  3. Whether the bond’s condition requiring payment of the fine is enforceable, given the statutory form of bail bonds under Section 67 of General Orders, No. 58.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and ruled in favor of the bondsmen, Vicente Bandoy and Vicenta Salamanca. The Court held that the condition in the bond requiring the bondsmen to pay the fine was void and unenforceable.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.