G.R. No. 14508 - People vs. Que Ping

The principal, Que Ping, a Chinaman, was charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
After arraignment and trial, Que Ping was convicted and subsequently appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
To secure his release pending the appeal, Que Ping executed a bail bond for P10,000, with Bernardo Marquez and Bernardo Dagala acting as sureties.

The records of the case were returned to the court of origin to have the decision read to the accused.
The Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order compelling the sureties to produce the body of Que Ping before the court on March 5, 1917, under threat that failure to do so would result in the forfeiture of the bail.
When Que Ping did not appear on the specified date, a second order was promulgated, requiring the sureties to show cause within 30 days why the bail should not be forfeited, a period later extended to 60 days upon their petition.

On April 23, 1917—after the original 30-day period but within the extended 60-day period—the sureties filed a motion to be released from their obligation, claiming that Que Ping had died in San Pablo, Laguna.
To substantiate their claim, the sureties introduced two exhibits:

Exhibit A: A certificate issued by the municipal secretary of San Pablo, Laguna, transcribing an entry from the “Registry of Births, Marriages and Deaths” that a certain Que Ping, aged 41, died of gastritis on April 7, 1917.
Exhibit B: A copy of the Bureau of Health’s certificate of death (General Form No. 84, Bureau of Health No. 6) issued by the president of the municipal board of health of San Pablo, Laguna, also stating that Que Ping died of gastritis on April 7, 1917.

These documents were considered prima facie evidence as public records, yet not conclusive since their probative value could be supported or undermined by other evidence.

Testimonies indicated that the certificates were issued without the officials having seen the body of Que Ping.
The municipal clerk and a sanitary inspector admitted that the death certificates were prepared without direct examination of a corpse.
The porter of the cemetery testified that, on the alleged burial date (April 8, 1917), no burial took place, casting doubt on the veracity of the death records.
Additional hearsay evidence and discrepancies in the statements of public officers, including Dr. Jaojoco (president of the municipal board of health), further weakened the evidence of death.

Based on the cumulative evidence, the trial court concluded that the death of Que Ping had not been satisfactorily proven.
Consequently, the court ordered that the bail bond executed by the sureties be forfeited.

Whether the trial court erred in not admitting Exhibits A and B as evidence of Que Ping’s death.
Whether those exhibits, even if admitted, should have been considered conclusive proof of the death of the accused.

Whether the evidence presented by the sureties was sufficient to prove that Que Ping had indeed died, thereby justifying the cancellation of the sureties’ obligation.
Whether the inconsistencies and deficiencies in the evidence (including the failure of officials to view the body and contradictory testimony regarding the burial) warranted a finding of non-death.

Whether the law, particularly section 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and relevant case precedents, supports the continued liability of the sureties despite the alleged death of the principal, once it has not been satisfactorily proven.