G.R. No. L-5555 - Reyes vs. Cornista

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5555)

Factual Background

On June 10, 1912 the prosecuting attorney of Ilocos Sur filed a complaint in the justice's court of Vigan charging Walter Schultz with malversation of public funds under Act No. 1740. To secure Schultz's release pending trial, A. A. Addison and Pastor M. Gomez executed a bail bond for two thousand pesos (P2,000), by which they undertook jointly and severally that Schultz would appear and answer the charge, hold himself amenable to the orders and process of the court, and, if convicted, render himself to the execution of sentence, or otherwise pay the P2,000 to the United States.

Proceedings in the Trial Courts

Schultz renounced his right to a preliminary investigation before the justice of the peace; the case, as beyond that justice's jurisdiction, was transmitted to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings. Thereafter the sureties repeatedly petitioned the Court of First Instance to issue an order authorizing their arrest of Schultz or his arrest by police so that they might deliver him and be relieved of their bond obligation. The court denied their petition on October 8 and again on November 30, 1912. At session on December 10, 1912 the court furnished the bondsmen a certified copy of the bail bond with an authorization indorsed permitting the bondsmen to arrest their principal or require his arrest by any policeman or peace officer, but it declined at that time to relieve the sureties from their obligation under the bond.

Forfeiture Proceedings and Notice

On March 31, 1913 the prosecuting attorney moved that the sureties be ordered to present the person of Schultz for trial on April 10, 1913, with admonition that failure to do so would result in forfeiture of the bond. That order was served on the sureties on April 7, 1913. Schultz could not be found within the Philippine Islands and was not served. When the cause was called on April 10 the sureties did not produce Schultz and the judge declared the bond forfeited, giving the sureties thirty days to present the body or to show cause why judgment should not be entered against them.

Bondsmen's Answer and Subsequent Motion for Judgment

On May 5, 1913 the bondsmen answered that they had not appeared in Vigan on April 10 because they lacked time to reach Vigan from Manila after receiving notice and because the court had refused their repeated requests to issue an order of arrest. On July 28, 1913 the prosecuting attorney moved for judgment against Pastor M. Gomez and A. A. Addison in the amount of the obligation. Hearing of that motion was repeatedly postponed, and when the matter was called on December 26 neither the sureties nor Schultz appeared. The Court of First Instance found for the sureties and absolved them from responsibility under the bond. The United States appealed.

Issue Presented on Appeal

The principal question on appeal was whether the Court of First Instance erred in absolving the sureties and in failing to enter judgment for the forfeiture of the bond, in light of the sureties' failure to surrender Schultz in accordance with Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the record of their applications and the court's responses.

Governing Law on Surrender by Sureties

The Supreme Court examined Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that sureties may surrender the defendant at any time prior to forfeiture and that an order of exoneration may follow proof of surrender after due notice to the promoter fiscal; the section further provides that, for the purpose of surrendering the defendant, the bail may arrest him or may cause his arrest by any police officer or other person of suitable age and discretion upon written authority indorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking. The Court treated these statutory provisions as describing, generally, the methods by which sureties may relieve themselves of responsibility.

Supreme Court's Analysis of the Bondsmen's Conduct

The Court noted that the sureties did not effectuate either statutory method of surrender. They neither arrested Schultz personally nor procured his arrest through a peace officer by delivering a properly indorsed certified copy of the bond to such officer. Instead, the sureties permitted Schultz to escape and sought from the trial court, by petition, an order of arrest that would permit them to deliver him and be exonerated. The Court emphasized that while the statute prescribes the ordinary means of surrender, it does not forbid the court from assisting sureties in apprehending a principal when such assistance is reasonable and lawful.

Court's View on Judicial Assistance and Power to Order Arrest

The Supreme Court acknowledged that a court has the authority to order the arrest of a principal when it appears that the principal is hiding or attempting to escape to defeat the ends of justice, and that the Court of First Instance could, within legal bounds, aid the sureties in bringing about surrender. The Court, however, refused to treat the trial court's prior refusals as dispositive error because the record did not show that the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-5555)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The United States was the plaintiff and appellant in the appeal from the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur.
A. A. Addison and Pastor M. Gomez were the defendants and appellees as sureties on a bail bond for Walter Schultz.
The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur entered judgment absolving the sureties from liability under the bail bond, and that judgment was the subject of this appeal.

Key Factual Allegations

Act No. 1740 was invoked in a complaint filed June 10, 1912, by the prosecuting attorney of Ilocos Sur charging Walter Schultz with malversation of public funds.
A. A. Addison and Pastor M. Gomez became sureties for Walter Schultz on a bail bond of two thousand pesos (P2,000) conditioned on his appearance and submission to process and judgment.
The accused renounced preliminary inquiry before the justice of the peace and the case was transmitted to the Court of First Instance for trial.
The sureties petitioned the Court of First Instance on October 7 and November 22, 1912, for an order of arrest to apprehend Schultz and to be relieved from the bond, and both petitions were denied.
On December 10, 1912, the court issued a certified copy of the bail bond with an indorsement authorizing the sureties to arrest or require their principal’s arrest by any policeman or peace officer, but the court refused to relieve the sureties of their obligation.
On March 31, 1913, the prosecuting attorney moved that the sureties present the body of Schultz on April 10, 1913, and the order was served on the sureties on April 7, 1913.
Schultz could not be found and was not served because his whereabouts were unknown within the Philippine Islands.
The court declared the bond forfeited on April 10, 1913, and gave the sureties thirty days to present the body or show cause.
The sureties filed an answer on May 5, 1913, asserting late notice and the court’s refusal to issue an order of arrest as grounds for relief.
After motions, postponements, and hearings, the Court of First Instance, on December 26, 1913, found in favor of the sureties and absolved them from responsibility under the bond.

Procedural History

The complaint began in the justice’s court of Vigan and was transmitted to the Court of First Instance because the justice lacked jurisdiction.
The sureties repeatedly sought court assistance to apprehend their principal and to be exonerated before forfeiture.
The trial court denied initial petitions to issue an order of arrest and later furnished a certified copy of the undertaking authorizing arrest by indorsement but declined to cancel the bond.
The prosecuting attorney moved for forfeiture and for judgment against the sureties after Schultz was not produced for trial.
Th