G.R. No. 155800 - Antonio vs. Reyes

Two sets of sureties signed a bail bond to secure the provisional release of Armingol Hanasan, who was charged with estafa through falsification of public documents relating to three criminal complaints filed in the municipal court of Davao City.
The bail bond involved a joint and several guarantee, meaning that any one surety who paid could later demand contribution or reimbursement from the others.

Concern arose among the bondsmen over the risk that Hanasan might abscond, especially since he was also detained in connection with a criminal abduction in another municipality.
Some of the sureties, acting on this apprehension and without requiring the consent of all co-sureties, submitted a petition to the court requesting that Hanasan be surrendered to custody and that their bond for his temporary release be cancelled.

Acting on the petition, the municipal judge initially ordered Hanasan detained, effectively placing him in custody.
Subsequently, a new surety, Teofilo Flores, signed a separate bail bond for the sum of P13,000, and the judge ordered Hanasan released again on the premise that the remaining sureties continued their undertaking as co-sureties under the bond.

Once released, Hanasan jumped bail, failing to appear as required for the proceedings.
With Hanasan missing and unable to be produced in court, the Court of First Instance of Davao, after the accused waived the preliminary investigation, declared the bond forfeited.
The court also denied the petition of the bondsmen for discharge from liability and issued an order for bond execution.

Among the sureties, Nicolas Edig, Eustaquio Tugade, and Jose Bagion appealed the decision, basing their appeal purely on questions of law.
They contended that when Hanasan was surrendered to the court and immediately ordered into custody, their bail bond was effectively cancelled, thereby discharging all sureties—including themselves—from liability.

The Rules of Court (specifically Section 16 [a] and [b] of Rule 110) provide that when the accused is surrendered to the court or rearrested/ordered into custody on the same charge or for the same offense, the bail bond shall be cancelled and the sureties discharged upon their request.
Precedents, such as State vs. Doyal and Nichols vs. United States, support the doctrine that once one surety has effected the surrender, the privilege extends to all sureties on the bond.

Whether the surrender of Armingol Hanasan to the court and his subsequent custody automatically discharges all of the sureties from their undertaking, even if the surrender was effected by only some of the co-sureties.
Whether the substitution of one or more sureties (with the introduction of Teofilo Flores as a new surety) without the full knowledge and consent of all co-sureties affects the joint and several liability of the remaining sureties.
Whether the actions taken by the appellants after the substitution (e.g., asking for withdrawal from the undertaking or moving for an alias warrant) imply an acquiescence that would estop them from later asserting the cancellation of their bond.