People v. Saik
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Kusain Saik and Quiama Akan were charged with murder with physical injuries. Following a trial, they were convicted, with Saik as principal and Akan as an accomplice. Akan subsequently appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. To secure his provisional release during the appeal, Akan, along with Luzon Surety Company, Inc., posted a P14,000 appeal bond. Procedural History: This Court dismissed Akan's appeal. The trial court then scheduled the promulgation of judgment. Luzon Surety Company, Inc. twice sought extensions to produce Akan, citing his absence and difficulties in locating his guarantor. The company later filed a motion to be relieved of liability, claiming Akan had died in a skirmish with PC soldiers. The trial court initially ordered the forfeiture of the P14,000 bond. However, after the bonding company filed an action against the guarantor and argued for the court's inherent power to control its processes, the execution of the judgment was suspended. Subsequently, the bonding company moved to set aside the writ of execution, reiterating the claim of Akan's death and submitting supporting documents. The trial court, finding the inability to produce Akan was due to circumstances beyond its control, reduced the bonding company's liability to P500. The Appeal: The government, represented by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cotabato, appeals the trial court's order reducing the bonding company's liability. The appellant contends that the evidence presented by the bonding company to prove Akan's death—namely, a letter from a mayor, an Arabic letter from a bandit leader, and a joint affidavit—constitutes hearsay and is inadmissible. The government argues that these individuals should have been examined under oath. The Supreme Court is asked to determine the admissibility and competency of the evidence regarding Akan's death and to render judgment accordingly.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in reducing the liability of the bondsman based on hearsay evidence regarding the death of the accused. Whether the death of the bailed accused, if proven by competent and admissible evidence, can relieve the surety company of its liability on the appeal bond.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the case for the determination of the fact of death of the bailed defendant by admissible and competent evidence. The Court ordered the trial court to render judgment on the motion of the bonding company as the circumstances and the law warrant, without pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in reducing the liability of the bondsman based on the evidence presented, which consisted of a letter from the Mayor of Buluan, an Arabic letter from a bandit leader, and a joint affidavit. The Court found these documents to be hearsay evidence, as the individuals who executed them were not presented in court for examination under oath. The Court emphasized that the death of a bailed accused must be established by competent and admissible evidence, not by mere assertions or unverified statements. Therefore, the trial court's reliance on such evidence to conclude that the inability of the surety to produce the accused was due to circumstances beyond its control was improper. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the death of the bailed accused, if proven by competent and admissible evidence, can indeed relieve the surety company of its liability on the appeal bond. However, the Court stressed that the burden of proving such death rests upon the surety company. The evidence presented must be sufficient to convince the court that the accused is no longer alive and that the surety's failure to produce the accused is directly attributable to this fact. In this case, since the evidence presented was hearsay, the fact of death was not sufficiently established, and thus the surety could not yet be relieved of its obligation based on that ground.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that for a surety company to be relieved of its liability on a bail bond due to the death of the accused, such death must be proven by competent and admissible evidence. Hearsay evidence, such as affidavits from individuals not presented in court or letters from local officials and alleged bandit leaders, is insufficient to establish the fact of death. The Court emphasized that the trial court must determine the fact of death through proper examination of witnesses and presentation of admissible evidence.