THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PACIFICO PECZON, ET AL., ACCUSED. PEDRO REBADULLA, ET AL., BONDSMEN AND APPELLANTS.

On November 13, 1956, a complaint for robbery in band was filed
against five persons before the Justice of the Peace Court of Japapad,
Samar. Having been allowed to enjoy provisional liberty, 19 persons put
up the requisite bail bond in their behalf in the total amount of
P40,000.00. And because of the constant failure of the accused to
appear on the various dates set for the preliminary investigation of
the case, the justice of the peace court considered their failure as a
waiver thereof and elevated the case to the Court of First Instance of
Oras, Samar, for its subsequent prosecution.

After the formal charge was filed by the fiscal, the case was set
for trial on August 22, 1958. Of the 19 bondsmen only 8 received notice
of the hearing even if two of them informed their counsel Pablo G.
Rebadulla of the date of trial to be held at Oras, Samar. Believing,
however, that the appearance of the accused was only required for the
preliminary investigation of the case, Atty. Rebadulla advised them
that their presence was not necessary it being sufficient that their
waiver, as they manifested to him, be made of record. But upon learning
later that the scheduled hearing was for trial on the merits, Atty.
Rebadulla wired the clerk of court entering his appearance and asking
for its postponement to the first week of November, 1058. Counsel also
sent by registered mail a written motion for postponement wherein he
justified his request by stating that as he has just been engaged and
has not had sufficient time to study the case the intervening period
was too short for him to prepare the defense of the accused more so
considering that the trial would be held at Oras, Samar. This motion
having been denied and the accused having failed to appear at the
trial, the court directed their arrest and the confiscation of their
bond, giving the bondsmen 30 days within which to produce the persons
of said accused and to explain why their bond should not be forfeited.

On October 6, 1958, counsel Rebadulla filed an urgent motion to lift
the order of confiscation alleging that if the bondsmen were not able
to present the accused at the trial it was because of the advice he
gave them not to appear due to his mistaken belief that the same was
only for preliminary investigation which the accused can waive and that
if the bondsmen failed to surrender them within the 30-day period given
them it was because the accused had already been arrested and lodged in
jail by virtue of a previous order of the Court. Finding this
explanation unsatisfactory coupled by the fact that the motion was not
supported by any affidavit, the court denied the motion. Counsel filed
a motion fcr reconsideration attaching this time the requisite
affidavits in justification of his request for the lifting of the
confiscation of the bond, but far from acceding to it, the court
rendered judgment ordering the bondsmen to pay to the Government the
amounts specified in their respective bonds, which judgment was made
immediately executory. Hence the bondsmen interposed the present appeal.

The main error assigned by appellants is that the lower court abused
its discretion in not finding satisfactory the explanation or reasons
given by them for their failure to produce the accused either at the
trial or within the 30-day period they were required to do so thus
ordering the confiscation of their respective bonds.

We find merit in this appeal. Section 15, Rule 110, of the Rules of Court provides:

“Sec. 15. Forfeiture of bail.—When the appearance of the defendant is required by the court, his sureties shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date.
If the defendant fails to appear as required, the bond is declared
forfeited and the bondsmen are given thirty days within which to
produce their principal and to show cause why a judgment should not be
rendered against them for the amount of their bond. Within the said
period of thirty days, the bondsmen (a) must produce the body of their
principal or give the reason for its non-production; and (b) must
explain satisfactorily why the defendant did not appear before the
court when required to do so. Failing in these two requisites, a
judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen.” (Italics supplied)

As the record shows that 11 of the 19 bondsmen were not given notice
of the date of hearing, it is evident that in the light of the
foregoing provisions of our rules they cannot be held liable for thedr
failure to produce the persons of the accused as required by the court
and hence their bonds cannot be forfeited on that ground.

Neither are we prepared to affirm the ruling of the lower court
relative to the confiscation of the bonds of the 19 bondsmen, including
those who were notified of the trial, even if they failed to produce
the body of their principals at the trial or within the 30-day period
given them to do so, for the simple reason that upon receipt of the
order of the court ordering the confiscation of their bonds and
requiring them to show cause why judgment should not be rendered
against them for their failure to comply with their commitment, they
submitted within a reasonable period a written explanation of the
reasons for their failure not only to produce said principals on the
date of the hearing but also during the period given them to do so as a
justification for their exoneration.

Thus, in their motion to lift the order of confiscation submitted on
October 6, 1958, they explained that their failure to present the
accused on the date of trial was due to the erroneous advice given them
by their counsel who told them that their presence was not necessary
because of his mistaken belief that it referred merely to a preliminary
investigation, and that their further failure to produce their
principals within the 30-day period was due to the fact that they had
already been arrested and lodged in jail in view of a previous order of
the court. These reasons remain undisputed, for as a matter of fact the
trial of said accused took place immediately thereafter which
eventually resulted in their exoneration. Considering that the hearing
was apparently being held for the first time and upon being informed of
the mistake committed by their counsel they immediately informed the
court of the reasons why they failed to comply with the order of the
court relative to the appearance of their principals, we are inclined
to consider the reasons thus given as sufficient justification that may
warrant the setting aside of the order of confiscation issued by the
trial court. In other words, the steps taken by appellants with regard
to their failure to comply with their commitment under their bonds
constitute a substantial compliance with the requirements of our rules
on the matter.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.