People v. Cordero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Arnaldo Cordero was charged with violation of Section 2692 of Act No. 2711 as amended. Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. posted a bail bond of P2,000.00 for his provisional liberty. On February 3, 1955, Cordero failed to appear at the arraignment, prompting the court to order the confiscation of the bond and the arrest of the accused. Procedural History: On May 20, 1958, the City Fiscal moved for judgment against Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. for the bond amount. Judgment was rendered on May 27, 1958, ordering the surety to pay P2,000.00. On July 25, 1961, the Fiscal moved for execution, which was granted on August 12, 1961. A writ of execution was issued and served on August 15, 1961. The Petition: On September 16, 1961, Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. moved to set aside the writ of execution, arguing that the accused Arnaldo Cordero died on May 20, 1957, prior to the judgment against the bond, and that his death extinguished his criminal liability. The surety also contended that the court failed to follow the procedure of ordering the surety to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against it.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of the accused after the breach of the bail bond but before judgment against the surety extinguishes the surety's liability. Whether the surety's failure to appear or plead within a reasonable time after the judgment against it cured any procedural irregularities in the proceedings.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the order of execution of the bond against Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. The appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the death of the accused: The Court held that the bail bond was breached when the appellant surety failed to produce the accused for arraignment on February 3, 1955. The subsequent illness and death of the accused three years later could not excuse the breach of the conditions of the bond. This is particularly true where the bondsman failed to exercise proper supervision over the accused, acting as the jailer, and did not ascertain the accused's whereabouts or death until six years after the default. The Court cited several cases, including U.S. vs. Babasa, U.S. vs. Paginada, U.S. vs. Sunico, People vs. Tuising, and People vs. Kantong Ali, to support the principle that the surety's liability attaches upon the breach of the bond, irrespective of subsequent events concerning the accused. On the issue of procedural irregularities and laches: The Court found that while the lower court did not strictly adhere to the Rules of Court regarding the procedure for forfeiture, the appellant surety was served a copy of the Fiscal's motion for judgment and failed to interpose any objection or plead the alleged violations. The surety only sought to be released almost three years and four months after the judgment was entered and execution was issued. The Court ruled that this inaction, or laches, cured whatever irregularity arose from the court's failure to give the surety an opportunity to show cause. All facts pleaded in the motion to set aside the execution occurred before the judgment was rendered and could have been raised earlier. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appeal itself was filed out of time, as the period for perfecting an appeal had already lapsed.
Main Doctrine
The death of an accused after the breach of the bail bond, but before the judgment against the surety, does not excuse the surety from liability, especially when the surety failed to exercise due diligence in supervising the accused and the surety's inaction amounted to laches.