People v. Lorredo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Silvestre Lorredo was accused of illegal possession of firearms. Victor Amador and Ciriaco Morales executed a bail bond for his temporary release in the amount of P300. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Tayabas rendered judgment finding Lorredo guilty and sentencing him to pay a fine of P50 with subsidiary imprisonment. The accused was granted ten days to comply with the judgment. On November 25, 1924, the sureties filed a motion withdrawing their bond and delivering the body of the accused, citing difficulty in ensuring his appearance due to his lack of fixed residence. This motion was not acted upon. The accused failed to pay the fine, and a writ of execution was issued. The sheriff returned the writ unsatisfied. A warrant of arrest was issued for subsidiary imprisonment. The sureties were summoned to produce the accused. On June 6, 1925, the sureties appeared, claiming the bond was cancelled. The fiscal moved for forfeiture, which the court granted, giving the sureties thirty days to produce the accused and explain his non-appearance. The accused was later apprehended and appeared in court. The court confirmed the forfeiture of the bond. The sureties filed motions to declare previous orders void and to be relieved of liability, claiming the bond was cancelled when they presented the accused on November 25, 1924. These motions were denied. The sureties appealed from the order denying their motions and ordering execution. The Petition: The appellants, Victor Amador and Ciriaco Morales, assigned alleged errors committed by the lower court in denying their motions to be relieved from their obligation as sureties.
Issue(s)
Whether the sureties were relieved of their liability upon presenting the accused in court and filing a motion to withdraw the bond. Whether the lower court erred in denying the sureties' motions and ordering the execution of the forfeiture of the bond.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the appealed order, declaring one-half of the bond forfeited, with costs against the appellants. The Court held that the forfeiture of half the bond and the execution thereof would satisfy the public interest, considering the accused had already complied with the judgment by paying the fine.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the sureties were relieved of their liability: The Court held that the sureties were not relieved of their liability. Section 75 of General Orders No. 58 requires a judicial order for the discharge of a bond upon surrender of the accused. The mere presentation of the accused in open court, accompanied by a motion to withdraw the bond, is insufficient. The attention of the court must be called to the surrender, and the court must issue an express order accepting the surrender and relieving the sureties. In this case, it does not appear that the fiscal was notified of the petition for discharge, nor did the court issue an order of discharge. The minutes of the hearing on November 25, 1924, only indicated that the accused was notified of the judgment and that his attorney offered a guaranty for compliance, not that the court accepted the surrender and discharged the sureties. Furthermore, the bond stipulated that the accused would render himself amenable to the judgment and its execution. The subsequent failure of the accused to comply with the judgment, despite the ten-day period granted and the attorney's guaranty, did not automatically relieve the sureties without a judicial order. On the issue of whether the lower court erred in denying the sureties' motions and ordering execution: The Court found no error in the lower court's denial of the sureties' motions and its order for execution. The Court clarified that while the order confirming the forfeiture did not explicitly state the sureties' liability, the declaration that they had not satisfactorily explained the non-appearance and the subsequent order of execution were equivalent to a declaration of liability. The Court also addressed the procedural aspect of appeals from orders of forfeiture, noting the practice of proceeding against sureties via motion in the same criminal case, as established in United States v. Carmen. The appeal period for such orders is generally fifteen days from notification. However, considering the accused had already paid the fine, the Court applied the doctrine in People v. Reyes and modified the forfeiture to one-half of the bond, deeming it sufficient to satisfy public interest.
Main Doctrine
Sureties are not relieved of their liability on a bail bond until a judicial order discharging them is issued, even if the accused is presented in court and a motion for discharge is filed, if the court's attention is not called to the surrender and no express order accepting the surrender and relieving the sureties is made. The mere filing of a motion stating the surrender and asking for release is insufficient.