Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4743-45)
Procedural History
After the sureties expressed concern that Hanasan might abscond, they surrendered him to the court, requesting his commitment to custody and the cancellation of their bail bond. The municipal judge approved this request initially but later authorized Hanasan’s release when a new surety, Teofilo Flores, signed a separate bail bond for P13,000. The judge erroneously believed that the original sureties remained bound by their undertaking, even after the surrender of Hanasan.
Controversy Over Bail Bond Status
Upon Hanasan's release, he subsequently jumped bail, leading to the Court of First Instance of Davao declaring the original bail bond forfeited. The appellants appealed this decision, positing that their obligations under the bail bond were discharged once Hanasan was surrendered and incarcerated. They cited the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, which stipulate that a surety is released from liability upon surrender of the accused.
Legal Interpretation of Surrender and Discharge
According to Section 16 of Rule 110, the bail bond shall indeed be cancelled, and sureties are discharged when the accused is surrendered or rearrested. The court determined that, once Hanasan was ordered into custody, the sureties lost control over him. Thus, all sureties involved, regardless of their active participation in the surrender, could not be held liable for Hanasan's subsequent non-appearance.
Precedent and Support for Sureties
Citing precedents, the court highlighted that the principle remains intact: when one of several sureties surrenders the accused, such an act benefits all co-sureties. Reference was made to the cases of "State vs. Doyal" and "Nichols vs. United States," which further reinforced this waiver of liability principle upon the surrender of an accused.
Prosecution’s Argument and Sureties’ Knowledge
The prosecution contended that the appellants bore knowledge of the substitution and thus should be estopped from claiming their discharge. They pointed to actions by the sureties, such as Jose Bagion seeking permission to withdraw from the bond and the lack of repudiation regarding their undertaking.
Rejection of Estoppel Claims
The court found the prosecution’s claim of estoppel unconvincing, asserting that estoppel by acquiescence is predicated on knowledge and agreement. Since there was no evidence supporting the assertion that the appellants w
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-4743-45)
Case Citation
- 92 Phil. 717
- G. R. Nos. L-4743-45
- Date of Decision: February 27, 1953
Parties Involved
- Plaintiff and Appellee: The People of the Philippines
- Accused: Armingol Hanasan
- Bondsmen and Appellants: Eustaquio Tugade, Nicolas Edig, and Jose Bagion
Procedural Background
- Two sets of sureties signed bail bonds for the provisional release of Armingol Hanasan, who faced charges of estafa through falsification of public documents in three criminal complaints filed in the municipal court of Davao.
- Concerned about the accused potentially jumping bail after being detained for criminal abduction in another municipality, some bondsmen surrendered him to the court.
- A petition was filed for Hanasan's custody and the cancellation of the bail bond.
- The municipal judge ordered Hanasan to jail but subsequently released him upon the signing of a new bail bond by Teofilo Flores for P13,000.
- The court assumed that the original sureties remained bound on their undertaking despite the surrender and re-bonding.
Factual Summary
- After being released on bail, Hanasan failed to appear in court, leading to a forfeiture of the bond as the sureties (including the new one and those who did not participate in the surrender) were unable to produce him.
- The Court of First Instance of Davao declared the bond forfeited and denied the bondsmen's petition for discharge from liability.
- The bondsmen appealed, claiming their appeal was based solely on questions of