Title
People vs. Gonzales
Case
G.R. No. L-12056
Decision Date
Jan 24, 1959
Bondsman appealed confiscation of bail bond after accused failed to appear; court upheld liability but reduced it to 20% due to accused's eventual production.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 260374)

Events Leading to the Confiscation of Bond

On October 15, 1956, Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. issued a bail bond for the accused, contingent upon the accused’s appearance in court when required. On November 27, 1956, the accused failed to appear for the hearing despite receiving due notice. Consequently, the court ordered the confiscation of the bond and provided the bondsman a thirty-day period to produce the accused and to show cause against the judgment on the bond.

Motion to Lift Confiscation Order

On December 7, 1956, Alto Surety filed a motion requesting to lift the order of confiscation. In support of their motion, Alto Surety argued that the accused’s failure to appear was due to his mother’s severe illness, which necessitated her hospitalization. Meanwhile, the case against the accused was dismissed upon the motion of special counsel Ferrer.

Trial Court's Decision on the Motion

The court issued an order on December 13, 1956, denying the motion to lift the confiscation but reduced the liability of the bondsman to 20% of the original bond amount. The court cited the bondsman’s failure to demonstrate due diligence in locating the accused on the trial date as a basis for denying the motion to lift the confiscation.

Claims of the Bondsman

The bondsman contended that the trial court abused its discretion by not accepting their explanation regarding the accused’s absence as satisfactory. The bondsman maintained that their notification to the accused prior to the hearing should have sufficed, and that requiring them to know the whereabouts of the accused at all times was an unreasonable obligation.

Court's Rationale

The court ruled that mere notification was insufficient to fulfill the bondsman's obligations under Section 17, Rule 110, which requires a bondsman to actively ensure the accused's presence when required. The court emphasized the bondsman's duty to exert diligent efforts to en

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.