THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO ORNALES, DEFENDANT; ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., BONDSMEN AND APPELLANT.

v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}

Normal
0

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

The facts of this case are not disputed:

To secure the provisional liberty of Ricardo Ornales y Quiambao pending his
appeal from the judgment of conviction of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, for theft, in Criminal Case No. 10824, a bond was filed, subscribed by
the Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., in the sum of P5,000.00. Upon
affirmance of the appealed decision by the appellate court, the court a quo set
the case for promulgation of the judgment on September 14, 1959 at 8:30
in the morning, accordingly notifying the surety company thereof. On the
scheduled date, the accused failed to appear. Consequently, the court ordered
his arrest and the confiscation of the appeal bond. At the same time, the
bondsmen were ordered to bring him to court within 30 days, otherwise, the bond
will be executed. Notwithstanding the two extensions of the period within which
to produce the accused, granted by the court at the request of the surety, the
latter failed to comply with its undertaking. Thus, on January 18, 1960, judgment was rendered against
the bond and the same was ordered executed.

On March 18, 1960, the
accused Ricardo Ornales was apprehended by the surety company and turned over
to the police authorities. The surety then filed with the court a motion to
lift the order of execution and for cancellation of the bond, alleging that its
failure to present the accused in court for the execution of the judgment in
the criminal case was due to the fact that after the said accused was notified
by the surety of the date of such execution of judgment, the former left his
residence without informing the surety of his whereabouts; that notwithstanding
difficulties, the surety company pressed on the search for the accused until he
was finally apprehended and turned over to the custody of the police. Then,
citing the ruling enunciated by this Court in the case of People vs. Puyal, ^[1]that a liberal policy shall be adopted
when dealing with bondsmen in criminal cases, the surety prayed for the lifting
of the execution order against the bond. This motion was denied by order of March 24, 1960. Another motion, filed
by the surety for the reduction of its liability, having been denied, the
surety instituted the present appeal. The sole question to be determined herein
is, whether under the circumstances of this case, the surety company is
entitled to a release from or at least a mitigation or reduction of its
liability under the bond.

The reduction of the liability of the bondsmen, after judgment has already
been rendered on the bond, depends upon the discretion of the court. And the
liberal attitude of the court in dealing with bondsmen, where the accused is
apprehended by them and his presence already made available to the court even
after a judgment has already been rendered on the bond, is founded on the
theory that the ultimate desire of the State is not the monetary reparation of
the bondsmen’s default, but the enforcement and execution of the sentence in a
criminal case. However, while the court is committed to this policy of
liberality towards bondsmen, the circumstances of each case shall determine the
degree in which said liberality is to be exercised. Thus, this Court, variably
has allowed from complete cancellation of the bond ^[2]to
reduction thereof to some degrees,^[3]
depending on the circumstances of each case.

In the case under consideration, the accused was made available to court
orders on March 18, 1960 or
more than 6 months from the date originally scheduled for the execution of the
judgment in the criminal case against him. It is observed, however, that the
surety failed to show or even state, the efforts it exerted leading to the
arrest of the accused. The mere allegation of “long and continuous efforts
* * * to locate the whereabouts of the accused” does not satisfy entirely
the degree of diligence expected of a surety, in law the jailer of the
principal. Nonetheless, in the circumstances obtaining herein, the appellant’s
liability is reduced to P2,500.00.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is accordingly modified, without
costs. SO ORDERED.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. Paredes,
Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J. P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concu

^[1] 98 Phil. 415.

^[2] In People vs. Calderon, G.R.
No. L-9497, July 31, 1956,
the surety was completely enumerated, when the accused was produced in court
the day after the bond was ordered confiscated.

^[3] Surety’s liability for
P10,000.00 was reduced to P2,000.00 although accused was apprehended 10 months
from confiscation of bond, where the surety has established the difficulties it
encountered and the efforts exerted to locate said accused (People vs. Puyal,
G.R. No. L-8091, February 17, 1956.)

Accused was surrendered within the 30-day period granted to the surety,
liability for P2,000.00 reduced to P1,000.00. (People vs. Felix, G.R. No.
L-10094, May 14, 1957.)

Liability for P2,000.00 reduced to P200.00, where accused surrendered after
six months. (People vs. Tan, 101 Phil. 324)

Liability for P8,000.00 reduced to P4,000.00 where accused surrendered three
months after judgment of foreclosure against the bond. (People vs. Vergel, 104
Phil. 425)

Accused presented himself in court 3 days after judgment against the bond,
but no satisfactory explanation was given by the surety for failure of the
accused to appear during the hearing, the surety’s liability for P7,000.00 was
reduced to P2,000.00 (People vs. Cruz, 109 Phil., 842.)

Liability for P20,000.00 was reduced to P10,000.00, accused was arrested 9
months after bond was confiscated. (People vs. Ignacio, G.R. No. L-18572, July 31, 1963.)