People v. Que
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Que Ping was charged with homicide, convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila, and appealed to the Supreme Court. To secure his release pending appeal, he posted a P10,000 bail bond with Bernardo Marquez and Bernardo Dagala as sureties. Procedural History: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, modifying only the term of imprisonment. Upon return of the records to the trial court, the sureties were ordered to produce Que Ping on March 5, 1917. Que Ping failed to appear, and the court ordered the sureties to show cause why the bail should not be forfeited. The period was extended to sixty days upon the sureties' petition. The Petition: On April 23, 1917, within the extended period, the sureties moved to be relieved of their obligation, claiming Que Ping had died in San Pablo, Laguna. They presented Exhibits A and B, a municipal secretary's certificate and a board of health certificate, respectively, stating Que Ping died of gastritis on April 7, 1917. The fiscal objected, a trial was held, and the court found the death not satisfactorily proven, ordering the bail forfeited. The sureties appealed.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of the principal, Que Ping, was satisfactorily proven. Whether the sureties are discharged from their obligation under the bail bond due to the alleged death of the principal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of forfeiture of the bail bond, holding that the death of the principal was not satisfactorily proven and thus did not release the sureties from their obligation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the death of the principal, Que Ping, was satisfactorily proven: The Court found that the evidence presented by the sureties, Exhibits A and B, which were certificates of death, were only prima facie evidence and not conclusive proof. The municipal secretary who signed Exhibit A admitted he did not see the deceased. The clerk who issued the certificate stated it was based on a cedula presented by an unknown Chinaman, without seeing the corpse. A sanitary inspector, who claimed to have prepared the certificate with the president of the municipal board of health, also admitted not seeing the corpse. Notably, Dr. Jaojoco, president of the municipal board of health, who certified Que Ping died of gastritis and that he had examined the body, admitted he had not seen the body and was in another town on the day of the alleged death. Furthermore, the cemetery porter testified that no burial occurred on the alleged date, and the Chinaman who secured the burial certificate was not presented as a witness. The Court concluded that the death of Que Ping was not satisfactorily proved by the sureties. On the issue of whether the sureties are discharged from their obligation under the bail bond due to the alleged death of the principal: The Court reiterated the principle that bail is exonerated when performance is rendered impossible by the act of God, the act of the obligee, or the act of the law, such as the death of the principal before the day of performance. However, the death of the principal after judgment has been obtained on the bail bond due to the non-appearance of the accused does not release the sureties. This is in accord with Section 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows forfeiture to be discharged if the defendant or counsel appears and satisfactorily explains the neglect or failure within thirty days. While the court might have discretion to extend this period, the sureties failed to satisfactorily prove the death of their principal within the extended period. The Court found it plausible that the death of a criminal might be simulated to avoid serving a sentence and to relieve sureties from financial obligation, thus upholding the trial court's decision not to cancel the bail bond.
Main Doctrine
The death of a principal after judgment has been obtained on a bail bond due to the non-appearance of the accused does not release the sureties from their obligation, especially when the death is not satisfactorily proven.