Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14457)
Facts:
Otiak Omal was charged with robbery in band in the Justice of the Peace Court of Datu Piang, Cotabato (Criminal Case 2175). After waiver of preliminary investigation, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, where the bail bond was reduced from P24,000 to P10,000; Luzon Surety Company, Inc. posted the bond and Omal was released. On August 10, 1956, Omal was arrested anew for rape (Criminal Case 2627), and later he was placed under the custody of the governor pending an amicable settlement; on December 12, 1956, he was ordered brought home for causing trouble but he disappeared after going toward the governor’s place.
On December 20, 1957, Luzon Surety filed an ex parte motion to cancel the bail bond and to be relieved of responsibility, asserting that it exerted efforts to find Omal but could not locate him and blaming irregular conduct in the accused’s custody. The State opposed, noting that no cancellation was sought when Omal was rearrested, and only after his escape/disappearance. The lower court granted the motion, prompting the State’s appeal.
Issues:
- Whether Luzon Surety Company, Inc. could be relieved of liability under the bail bond after Omal’s disappearance while out on bail.
- Whether Omal’s rearrest for another offense and the alleged irregular custody of provincial officials excused the surety’s non-production of the accused.
Ruling:
The Court reversed the order cancelling the bail bond, with costs.
The Court held that the surety remained liable because it did not take the steps required by Section 16, Rule 110 when Omal was rearrested, and the record did not sufficiently show that performance of the bond was rendered impossible by a recognized ground. It further noted that Omal was later surrendered in custody in 1958, and the denial of the petition in that respect was without prejudice to a future cancellation motion in the lower court if the accused remained in custody.
Ratio:
A surety is deemed the jailer of the accused and bears the obligation to keep the accused under surveillance until the bond is cancelled or the surety is discharged under the Rules. Even if escape may be linked to irregular conduct by public officers, the surety is equally chargeable for failing to act promptly and for allowing the situation to persist without informing the court or seeking discharge.
The Court further ruled that, although bail may be exonerated when performance is rendered impossible by the act of God, the act of the obligee, or the act of law, the surety still must inform the court so it may take appropriate action; Luzon Surety kept silent when Omal was rearrested and only notified the court after the accused had escaped/disappeared while the bond remained valid. Consequently, the surety is presumed to have chosen to continue its liability and must be held accountable for what later happened to Omal.
Doctrine:
- A surety is the jailer of the accused and is responsible for keeping the accused under surveillance until discharged.
- (Get Pro to unlock 3 more doctrines)