G.R. No. L-9497 - People vs. Herminio Calderon, et al., accused, Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc., bondsman-appellant.

Nature of the appeal
Associated Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. acted as bondsman-appellant for the accused in an appeal from an order of Judge Agustin P. Montesa.
The order required the forfeiture of twenty per centum (20%) of the P4000.00 bond filed for each accused.

Underlying criminal case and bail
In Criminal Case No. 3727 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Herminno Calderon and Soledad de Guzman were charged with adultery.
Both accused pleaded not guilty.
Each accused filed a bail bond of P4000.00.

Setting of trial and motion to postpone
Trial was set for May 23, 1955.
On May 21, 1955, Calderon filed a motion to postpone the hearing.
Calderon cited that he had to take his sick wife to Manila for hospitalization because “as nobody can take care of her.”
The motion annexed a sworn statement of Dr. Angel Gloria, stating that he advised Herminno Calderon to take his wife to the hospital.

Denial of continuance and order to produce/show cause
On the day of trial, the lower court denied the motion for continuance.
The denial rested on the ground that the motion was “for not having been made in conformity with law and with the rules.”
In the same order, the court directed the Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. to:

1) produce the accused, and 2) show cause why judgment should not be rendered against the bond, within thirty (30) days.

Surrender of the accused and request to lift forfeiture
The bondsman surrendered the bodies of the accused on May 24, 1955, the day after the order to produce was issued.
The bondsman asked that the forfeiture be lifted.
The lower court denied the petition on the basis that no explanation for the non-appearance had been gi...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the forfeiture of twenty per centum (20%) of the bond should stand as to Herminno Calderon, despite his surrender the day after the order to produce.
Whether the bondsman’s belated explanation—raised in a motion to reconsider filed on June 7, 1955—could cure the lower court’s finding that no explanation was given for non-appearance.
Whether the forfeiture of bond should be tempered by the principle that bail bonds primarily secure the presence of the accused rather tha...(Subscriber-Only)