Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36721-27)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36721-27)
Facts:
Communications Insurance Company, Incorporated filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against Hon. Onofre A. Villaluz, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court, Antonio Marinas, Deputy Sheriff of Rizal, and the People of the Philippines, seeking to annul an order issued in Criminal Cases Nos. CCC-VII-481, 487 to 492-P.C. The criminal cases, against Nestor Evangelista and three or four co-accused, involved seven (7) cases of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The Circuit Criminal Court issued the assailed order denying Communications Insurance Company’s motion to reduce its liability under seven (7) bail bonds it posted for Evangelista’s temporary release, after the bonds were declared forfeited on May 11, 1972. The forfeiture order gave the petitioner thirty (30) days to produce Evangelista’s body who had failed to appear during trial scheduled for April 12, 1972, and to show cause why judgments should not be rendered against it on its bonds. Because petitioner failed to comply, respondent judge ordered that a writ of execution issue on June 8, 1972 for the total bond amount of P134,000.00.After the writ issued, petitioner invoked the so-called “three-fold” rule under Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and filed on April 5, 1973 (before the hearing date initially set for April 14, 1973) a motion in the criminal court to reduce its liability based on the rule that the convict would serve not more than three-fold the maximum term corresponding to the most severe penalty, capped at forty (40) years. Respondent judge denied the motion on April 6, 1973. Petitioner then brought the present petition, arguing that the denial allegedly contravened jurisprudence and a “clear policy” on confiscation of bail bonds, particularly as to the amount thereof. Petitioner also relied on Circular No. 29 (May 7, 1972), and on People v. Puyat and People v. Daisin, which had reduced confiscated bond liability after the accused were ultimately surrendered and the sentences could be executed. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, in its resolution of May 30, 1973, the Court required petitioner to pay the Clerk of Court P90,000.00 as a condition for due course as to the balance of the claim, after which respondents filed their answer on July 26, 1973 and the matter was set for hearing on August 24, 1973. After evaluating the petition, the Court dismissed it for lack of reversible error and for absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge.
Issues:
Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to reduce its liability under the confiscated bail bonds despite the petitioner’s reliance on the “three-fold” rule under Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code, Circular No. 29, and prior cases that mitigated bond liability?Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)