G.R. No. 6741 - People vs Bonoan

Filing of the homicide case and grant of bail to Simeon Mandac
The fiscal for the Province of Ilocos Norte filed an information in the Court of First Instance of that province on April 7, 1910, charging Simeon Mandac with the crime of homicide.
Mandac was arrested, and the court fixed bail at PHP 10,000.

Execution of the bail bond (recognizance) by the sureties
On April 21, 1910, Nemesi o Bonoan, Evaristo G. Clemente, Septimo Villanueva, and Ignacio Arzaga (appellants) entered into a recognizance or bond to the United States in the sum of PHP 10,000.
The bond conditioned that “the above-named defendant, Simeon Mandac, will appear and answer the charge above mentioned in whatever court it may be tried,” and that he would “at all times hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the court,” and “if convicted will appear for judgment and render himself to the execution and satisfaction thereof,” and that if they failed to perform those conditions, they would pay the United States the sum of ten thousand pesos Philippine currency.
Mandac was released from custody as a result of the bond.

Mandac’s conviction and the abandoned appeal
The case proceeded to trial.
Mandac was found guilty and sentenced accordingly.
An appeal to the Supreme Court was taken.
The Supreme Court issued an order on August 18, 1910 stating that, upon presentation by the Attorney-General in case No. 6243 against Mandac, the appeal was to be held abandoned and the sentence declared final, with the case returned to the Court of First Instance for execution of the sentence.
The Supreme Court order granted the petition on the grounds that the regulation period for filing appellant’s brief had elapsed without presentation thereof and that, according to the investigation made, Mandac was apparently beyond the jurisdiction of the court, his whereabouts being absolutely unknown, demonstrating his purpose of hiding himself and abandoning his appeal.
The Supreme Court declared “the appeal entered by the accused” abandoned and remanded the case for execution of the judgment.

Remand for execution and the orders directing the production of Mandac
The record was returned to the lower court as directed.
On September 3, 1910 (Saturday), the Court of First Instance issued an order directing the appellants to present their principal, Mandac, immediately, for the purpose of commencing to serve the sentence imposed upon him.
On Monday, September 5, 1910, the appellants appeared and stated in writing that they were unable to present Mandac in so short a time.
On September 5, 1910, an order forfeiting the bond was entered, and the appellants were given thirty days to provide a satisfactory explanation for why their principal failed to appear.
On September 15, 1910, the appellants asked for an extension of time; the request was denied on September 23, 1910.
The appellants then filed a document setting forth their reasons for their inability to present Mandac.
The lower court considered the reasons insufficient.
Final judgment was entered on October 31, 1910, and the provincial fiscal was directed to proceed against sufficient property of the bondsmen to satisfy the amount of the bond.

Appeal by the bondsmen and the sureties’ defenses
The bondsmen appealed the order or judgment.
Counsel insisted that the appellants should be relieved of all responsibility on two grounds:

A new bail bond in the sum of PHP 10,000 allegedly substituted in lieu of the original bond; and
Mandac was legally held in the Province of Nueva Vizcaya on a charge of bandolerismo when the lower court ordered the appellants to present him on September 3, and the authorities refused to give him up to the appellants.

Ruling on the “substituted bond” defense
The Court held that the alleged substituted bond never was accepted or approved by the court.
The Court ruled that bondsmen could not be relieved by merely presenting or causing to be presented an alleged bond that had never been approved.
The Court held that such a document had no place in the record.

Ruling on the “bandolerismo confinement and refusal to surrender” defense
The Court treated the second question as decisive and described the undisputed circumstances:

On September 3, 1910, at the time the lower court ordered the appellants to present Mandac without delay, Mandac was legally held in Nueva Vizcaya on a charge of bandolerismo.
The authorities refused to turn Mandac over to the appellants for presentation to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte.
The first time appellants had ever been called upon by the court to present Mandac was September 8, 1910.

The Court stated that the United States was the obligee in the homicide case bond.
The Court further stated that the same obligee caused Mandac’s arrest and confinement in Nueva Vizcaya on the bandolerismo charge and refused to deliver him up to the appellants.
The Court held it would be against principle and justice to allow the Government to recover against sureties for not producing a principal whom the Government itself had placed beyond their reach and control.
The Court held that when the bond was accepted, an implied covenant existed on the part of the Government that it would not interfere with the due compliance of bond conditions or take proceedings against the principal affecting the sureties’ rights.

The alleged prior violation of conditions before rearrest
The Court addressed a contention that the bond conditions were violated before Mandac’s rearrest on September 1, 1910.
The relevant timeline of Mandac’s conduct as found/related by the Court:

Mandac came to Manila on or about May 29, 1910, and remained until about June 24, 1910, when he disappeared.
The appellants, residents of Ilocos Norte, became alarmed by Mandac’s long presence in Manila; one of them came to Manila prepared to arrest or cause the arrest of Mandac, but Mandac could not be found.
Mandac was next heard of as organizing a band of outlaws in the northern provinces.
The band was perfected to some extent, and Mandac and his band committed various depredations, including robbing a municipal treasury, carrying away animals and property of private individuals, and kidnapping a number of priests.
The disturbances caused the Government to send a large force of the Philippine Constabulary to arrest or destroy the band.
These quasi-military operations cost the Government large sums.
The band was finally broken up, and members were captured, including Mandac.

The Court stated that it was for these depredations that Mandac was held in co...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the sureties could be relieved by a purported substituted bail bond
Whether the alleged new bond in the sum of PHP 10,000, claimed to have been substituted for the original bond, could relieve the sureties from liability.

Whether the sureties were liable when the Government confined the principal elsewhere and refused surrender
Whether the sureties could be held liable for failure to produce Mandac when the principal was legally held in Nueva Vizcaya on bandolerismo at the time the lower court ordered production.
Whether the Government’s arrest, confinement, and refusal to deliver Mandac to the appellants negated or prevented the sureties’ performance of the bond conditions.
Whether an implied covenant existed that the Government would not interfere with the due compliance of bond conditions or take proceedings affecting the sureties’ rights.

Whether conduct of Mandac before rearrest constituted a breach of bond ...(Subscriber-Only)