Case Summary (G.R. No. 244544)
Relevant Dates
Key dates include the court's order dated September 18, 1963, which denied a motion by the accused to lift the order confiscating her bail bond, and the subsequent order on October 2, 1963, which denied a motion for reconsideration filed by the bondsman. The accused had failed to appear for her trial scheduled on September 6, 1963.
Applicable Law
The case is governed by the 1964 Rules of Court, specifically Section 15 of Rule 114, which pertains to the forfeiture of bail.
Background of the Case
Isabel del Carmen y Pabalan had posted a bail bond amounting to P1,000.00 after appealing her conviction for theft. On September 6, 1963, she failed to appear in court for her trial, which led the court to issue an order for forfeiture of the bail bond and instructed the bondsman to produce her within thirty days.
Procedural History
On the same day that the order of forfeiture was issued, the accused filed a motion, citing a fire on Folgueras Street in Tondo, Manila, as the reason for her absence. However, this motion was denied due to the accused's lack of standing. The accused subsequently filed another motion for reconsideration on September 18, which was also denied, although the trial court reduced the forfeiture to 20% of the bond due to the eventual surrender of the accused.
Issues Raised on Appeal
The first issue raised by the bondsman-appellant concerned the interpretation of Section 15 of Rule 114, arguing that the trial court had no authority to render judgment on the bond before the completion of the thirty-day period provided to comply with the court's order.
Court's Rationale
The court reasoned that while the bondsman is granted thirty days to either produce the principal or explain the non-production, the trial court is not precluded from rendering judgment if the principal is produced and the explanation is submitted before the expiration of that period. The critical evaluation of whether the explanation is satisfactory does not require the court to defer judgment until after thirty days.
Evaluation of the Explanation
The second issue concerns the adequacy of the explanation provided for the accused's failure to appear. The court confirmed that the trial court has broad di
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 244544)
Case Overview
- This case is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dated September 18, 1963.
- The appeal concerns the denial of a motion to lift the court's order confiscating the bail bond of the accused, Isabel del Carmen y Pabalan.
- The order also involves the denial of a motion for reconsideration from the Consolacion Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., the bondsman.
Background of the Case
- Isabel del Carmen y Pabalan had posted a bail bond of P1,000.00 for her provisional liberty while appealing a conviction for theft.
- The trial was set for September 6, 1963. However, the accused failed to appear on the scheduled date.
- The court subsequently issued an order to confiscate the bail bond due to the accused's absence and required the bondsman to produce the accused within 30 days.
Events Leading Up to the Appeal
- On the day of the trial, the accused, with the bondsman's consent, filed a motion to lift the order of arrest and confiscation, citing a fire that delayed her arrival.
- This motion was denied on September 7, 1963, due to the movant's lack of personality.
- A motion for reconsideration was filed on September 18, 1963, which