People v. Pacomio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Romeo Pacomio and Justiniano Pacomio were accused of illegal possession of dynamite in Criminal Case No. 4100 and were released on bail bonds of P1,200 each, posted by appellant Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. The accused failed to appear at the hearing on February 26, 1959, despite notice to the appellant. Procedural History: On February 26, 1959, the court issued an order requiring the appellant to produce the accused within thirty (30) days and show cause why judgment should not be rendered against the bonds. Notice of this order was served on March 7, 1959. The appellant failed to comply within the given period. On July 31, 1959, the court ordered the appellant to pay P2,400, the aggregate value of the bonds. On September 23, 1959, the appellant surrendered the accused and moved to set aside the order of confiscation. On November 25, 1959, the lower court amended its order, reducing the sentence against the appellant from P2,400 to P1,800. The Appeal: The appellant sought reversal of the order of November 25, 1959, arguing that the surrender of the defendants should absolve them. They cited a motion allegedly filed by the accused, claiming their failure to appear was due to being at sea fishing and that they only learned of the hearing upon their return.
Issue(s)
Whether the surrender of the accused after the order of confiscation, but before the finality of the judgment, warrants the setting aside of the judgment against the surety. Whether the lower court was justified in reducing the forfeited amount of the bail bonds.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court, reducing the forfeited amount against the appellant from P2,400 to P1,800. The Court found the appeal to be without merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The appeal is devoid of merit. Firstly, the motion cited by the appellant, alleging the accused were at sea, was not part of the record and was not introduced in evidence. Secondly, the motion was not verified, thus its allegations could not be taken at face value. Thirdly, the appellant did not claim to have notified the defendants of the scheduled hearing prior to their absence. The Court noted that if the surety had done so, they would likely have found the accused at their residence, as they were at sea only on the date of the hearing. Furthermore, the appellant did not send a representative to explain the absence of the accused. Crucially, despite receiving notice of the order to produce the accused within thirty days and show cause, the appellant did nothing to comply or explain their inability to do so within the given period. This demonstrated gross remissness in the performance of their duties under the bail bonds. On Issue 2: The lower court was fully justified in merely reducing the amount of the judgment against the appellant from P2,400 to P1,800. The record satisfactorily established that the appellant was grossly remiss in the performance of its duty under the bail bonds. The failure to produce the accused within the stipulated period, coupled with the lack of diligent efforts to notify the accused or to explain their absence, warranted the forfeiture of the bonds. The reduction of the forfeited amount by the lower court was a matter of discretion, and given the circumstances, the Court found no reversible error in the amended order.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court, which reduced but did not entirely set aside the judgment against the surety company for the forfeited bail bonds. The Court found that the surety was grossly remiss in its duties, having failed to produce the accused within the given period or offer a valid explanation, despite receiving due notice of the order. The subsequent surrender of the accused, without prior diligent efforts by the surety to notify them of the hearing or to explain their absence, was deemed insufficient to absolve the surety from liability.