G.R. No. L-27401 - People vs. Balondo

The petitioners, Estanislao Mayuga and Simeon San Agustin, are sureties on a bond given for the appearance of Jose Byron Santos, who was charged with practicing medicine without a license.
The criminal proceeding against Jose B. Santos was being handled in the Court of First Instance in Zamboanga.

The accused, Jose B. Santos, and his bondsmen failed to appear on the set hearing date of July 8, 1920.
On October 16, 1920, upon the motion of the fiscal, the presiding judge declared the bond forfeited and granted the bondsmen a period of thirty days to produce their principal or explain his non-appearance.

On November 2, 1920, the bondsmen submitted an affidavit to the trial court stating that on the scheduled hearing date, Jose B. Santos was sick and thus unable to appear.
On December 4, 1920, Judge A. Horrilleno, then presiding, ruled that the affidavit was insufficient because it did not substitute for their required personal appearance. He granted them an additional thirty days to appear personally and show cause for their principal’s absence.
It was noted that the petitioners resided in Paranaque, Rizal, which posed considerable difficulty in appearing in the Zamboanga court, especially without being served personal notice.

On December 8, 1920, a copy of the order (requiring personal appearance) was served on Vicente Bautista, the attorney for Jose B. Santos, in Zamboanga.
Despite this, neither the principal nor the bondsmen appeared within the extended period.
On January 10, 1921, Judge Quirico Abeto, the Auxiliary Judge, entered an order, at the fiscal’s motion, for the issuance of an execution against the bondsmen.

On January 26, 1921, Jose B. Santos appeared, pleaded guilty, paid the fine, and his case proceeded accordingly.
The petitioners filed the present petition for the writ of certiorari, arguing that the execution against them was issued irregularly, as they were not properly notified regarding the requirement for personal appearance.

Whether the issuance of the execution order against the bondsmen, under the circumstances, was a regular and proper exercise of judicial authority.

Was the order requiring a personal appearance of the bondsmen correctly and adequately notified?
Did the service of the order through the attorney for the accused suffice for notifying the bondsmen?

Whether the personal liability of the bondsmen is separate and distinct from the criminal proceedings against the principal.

Should the procedural requirements for executing the forfeiture of a bond guarantee strictly observe due process independent of the criminal charge?

Whether the failure to serve the bondsmen with personal notice invalidates the subsequent order for execution.