People v. Kasim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information was filed charging Gantang Kasim, Lanao Moro, and Talodsuk Hadji, Makamad with theft of large cattle. On the scheduled hearing, the accused Lanao Moro could not be located. Procedural History: The trial court ordered the confiscation of the bond filed by Lanao Moro and his bondsman, Luzon Surety Co., Inc., granting the company thirty days to produce the accused and explain the non-production. The Surety Company obtained several postponements. Subsequently, it filed a motion conceding partial confiscation of P1,000 and requested a warrant of arrest, which was granted. The bonding company was ordered to pay P1,000 as partial liability. The Petition: The present appeal questions the authority of the trial court to order partial confiscation of the P4,000 bail bond despite the failure of the bonding company to surrender the principal and despite several extensions granted.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court has the authority to order a partial confiscation of a bail bond when the principal has not been produced. Whether the reasons provided by the bonding company for the non-production of the accused constitute a satisfactory excuse for its failure to fulfill its obligation.
Ruling
The order appealed from is reversed. It is hereby ordered that the bond filed by appellee bonding company be ordered confiscated to its full amount.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the trial court to order partial confiscation: The Supreme Court held that the trial court has no authority to order a mere partial confiscation of a P4,000 bail bond when the principal has not been surrendered and despite several extensions granted to the bonding company. The Court emphasized that the bonding company's responsibility is to produce the accused before the court whenever required, and failure to do so constitutes a complete breach of the guaranty. The Rules of Court, specifically Section 15, Rule 110, mandate that if the bonding company fails to produce the body of its principal or give a satisfactory reason for non-production, judgment shall be rendered against it on its bond. Therefore, partial confiscation is not permissible under these circumstances. On the sufficiency of the reasons for non-production: The Court found the reasons provided by the bonding company for the non-production of the accused to be unsatisfactory. These reasons, namely the accused's alleged transfer of residence without notification and his going into hiding in a place reputed to be a sanctuary for criminals, were based on information received from the defense counsel. The Court noted that it is natural for the defense counsel to protect his client's interest, and the bonding company lacked first-hand knowledge of the accused's whereabouts. The Court stated that the accused's production would not have been impossible had the bonding company diligently performed its duty. Instead of relying on information from the defense counsel, the company should have taken proactive steps from the beginning, especially when the accused was absent during the first hearing, to ensure his appearance at subsequent hearings. The Court concluded that the bonding company failed to be earnest and conscientious in performing its obligation.
Main Doctrine
A surety company is responsible for the full amount of the bail bond if it fails to produce the body of its principal when required, without a satisfactory reason, and despite extensions granted. The court cannot order mere partial confiscation of the bond in such instances.