G.R. No. L-9245 - People vs. Panis

The accused, Dominador Panis, was charged with illegal possession of a firearm in the Municipal Court of the City of Legaspi.
Initially, Panis was released on provisional liberty upon posting a bond by the Visayan Surety and Insurance Corporation.
Due to his repeated failure to appear at scheduled hearings, an order was issued for the confiscation of his bond.

After the initial bond and subsequent failure to appear, another bail bond was filed by the World Wide Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. to secure his provisional release.
On September 17, 1952, the Municipal Court forwarded the case to the Court of First Instance of Albay for trial on the merits because the trial had been postponed eight times at the request of the accused.
On September 19, 1952, the city attorney filed an information against Panis, leading to further proceedings regarding his absence at hearings.

On September 3, 1953, upon the petition of the city attorney, the court ordered the confiscation of the bonds on account of Panis’s failure to appear on the date of the hearing, and the bondsmen were given 30 days to produce their principal and explain why judgment should not be rendered against them.
On December 23, 1953, both the Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation and the World Wide Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. filed motions:

On the same day, Panis filed a motion to post a new bond, promising to appear in all future hearings.
Subsequently, Alliance Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. (appellant) filed a bond amounting to ₱2,000 for the provisional release of Panis.

On January 29, 1954, appellant was notified that the case would be heard on February 10, 1954.
Panis failed to appear on the scheduled hearing date, prompting the court on February 10, 1954, to order the confiscation of the bond and to give the appellant 30 days to produce the accused and explain any reasons why judgment should not be rendered against it.
Copy of the confiscation order was received by the appellant on February 16, 1954.

On February 23, 1954, the city attorney filed a motion to dismiss the case, asserting that upon reinvestigation it was found that Panis had been issued a temporary permit by the Philippine Constabulary on July 13, 1950, allowing him to possess a firearm for 30 days from June 30, 1950.
Before acting on the motion to dismiss, the court, upon the provincial fiscal’s petition filed on July 6, 1954, ordered the execution of the confiscation order issued on February 10, 1954 – which affected bonds filed by both the original bondsmen and the ₱2,000 bond filed by the appellant.
On July 29, 1954, the court dismissed the case against Panis upon the motion to dismiss filed by the government.
On September 24, 1954, appellant filed a motion to set aside the execution order as it pertained to its bond and to cancel the bond, but this motion was denied for lack of merit on September 25, 1954.
Despite filing a motion for reconsideration and providing an explanation along with an affidavit by the arresting officer detailing efforts to produce the accused – including obtaining assistance from local police in Guimba, Nueva Ecija – the appellant’s motion was ultimately reviewed on appeal.

The affidavit stated that upon arriving in Guimba, the officer informed Panis of his mission to arrest him for failure to appear and for the court order of confiscation.
The accused claimed that he was authorized to possess the firearm pursuant to a permit issued by the Philippine Constabulary, even threatening that if force was used against him, he could only be brought in “a dead body.”
The affidavit emphasized that the appellant had made diligent efforts to secure the arrest of Panis, a fact that was presented in support of its motion for reconsideration.

Was the court justified in executing the order of confiscation of the bond filed by appellant despite the pending motion to dismiss?

The issue revolves around the proper sequencing of judicial actions when a motion to dismiss is filed within the 30-day period granted for the bondsman to explain the failure to produce the accused.

Should the bondsman, Alliance Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., be held liable for the forfeiture of its bond given their timely filing of a motion to dismiss and their subsequent efforts to produce the accused?

The appellant contended that its prompt action in filing the motion to dismiss within the stipulated period should have precluded the execution of the confiscation order.

Are the explanations and supporting affidavit by the arresting officer sufficient to justify relief from the consequences of the order of confiscation under the court’s discretion?

The case raises the judicial question of whether good cause and demonstrable efforts to apprehend the accused can warrant setting aside an execution order even if procedural non-appearance initially triggered the confiscation.