G.R. No. 11036. May 23, 1958
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Court of First Instance of Isabela with the crime of murder (Criminal Case No.
759), and to secure his provisional release, a bail bond in the amount of
P25,000 was, on March 16, 1950, posted in his favor by Agustin Bersamin,
Marcelina Cabrero, Nicolas F. Garcia, Donato Tolentino, Eduardo Salvador, Damaso
Tolentino, Presentacion Baldonado, Mariano Tolentino, Marcos Soliven, Feliciano
Baldonado and Francisco Legaspi.
On July 13, 1950, the criminal case was called for trial and because the
accused Florentino Tolentino failed to appear, the lower court issued an order
giving his bondsmen five days to explain why their bond should not be
confiscated, and postponing the trial to August 21, 1950. On June 12, 1951, the
court ordered the confiscation of Tolentino’s bail bond, giving the bondsmen
thirty days within which to produce the body of the accused, otherwise judgment
would be rendered for the execution of the bond. A year later, the provincial
fiscal moved for the execution of the bond and on December 24, 1952, the lower
court ordered its execution.
On February 16, 1953, counsel for Tolentino’s bondsmen filed a motion for the
reconsideration of the order to execute the bond on the ground that Tolentino
had died on October 27, 1952 in an armed encounter between a patrol of the
Philippine Army and some Huks in the vicinity of Sta. Lucia, Magalang, Pampanga,
but the court denied the motion for the reason that, death of the accused after
judgment against the bail bond had become final does not release the sureties.
Whereupon, on September 15, 1953, the provincial fiscal asked for the issuance
of a writ of execution against the bondsmen, and pursuant thereto, the court
issued a writ of execution on October 2, 1953 in accordance with which the
sheriff advertised for sale at public auction the properties given by the
bondsmen as security.
Before the execution sale could take place, however, several incidents
occured in the case, namely: (a) the heirs of bondsman Mariano Tolentino, who
had died during the pendency of the case, filed a petition in court for the
exclusion of the properties of the deceased included in the notice of sale on
the ground that notices of the orders of confiscation and execution of the bail
bond could not have been validly served upon the deceased Mariano Tolentino
because he had died before said orders were issued by the court; (2) bondsman
Francisco Legaspi moved for the exclusion of his residential house from the lot
given by him as security for the bond, alleging that said house was never given
by him as security; and (3) one Nicolasa Garcia moved to exclude lots 4179 and
595 of the Santiago Cadastre from the execution sale on the ground that they
belonged to her and not to bondsman Nicolas Garcia. In view of the pendency of
these motions, the court postponed the auction sale indefinitely until said
motions would have been studied and resolved.
On December 19, 1953, the accused Florentino Tolentino was apprehended in the
province of Cagayan and immediately brought before the court a quo by his
bondsmen, who all prayed for the lifting of the orders of confiscation and
execution of their bail bond, but the motion was denied by the court. The court
had, in the meantime, released from the order of execution the two lots claimed
by Nicolasa Garcia which it found to belong to this claimant and not to bondsman
Nicolas Garcia.
On October 6, 1955, the bondsmen filed another motion to reconsider the
orders of forfeiture and execution of their bond, giving as reason for their
inability to produce the accused on the dates ordered by the court the fact that
he went into hiding because of a certain threat against his life. Again the
court denied the motion for reconsideration; but in the same order, it released
from the notice of execution sale the house which bondsman Francisco Legaspi
claims should be excluded therein, having found that said house was constructed
only after the bail bond was posted and consequently, could not have been given
by Legaspi as security therefor; and with respect to the motion of the heirs of
bondsman Mariano Tolentino, the court found that Tolentino had already died
before the issuance of its orders of forfeiture and execution of the bail bond
so that he could not have been validly notified thereof, and so set aside the
order of execution with respect to the properties belonging to the estate of
Mariano Tolentino. The other bondsmen sought reconsideration of this last order,
which the court denied. Wherefore, four of the bondsmen, namely, Marcelina
Cabrero, Agustin Bersamin, Donato Tolentino, and Feiiciano Baldonado appealed to
this Court.
Appellants assign two errors allegedly committed by the trial court, to
wit:
- The lower court erred In not remitting the forfeiture of the bailbond upon
application of the bondsmen on the ground that they have captured the accused
and presented him before the court. - The lower court erred in not releasing the bailbond of all the bondsmen when
it released two of the bondsmen from the obligation under the bailbond.
Anent the first assignment of error, we see no merit in appellants’ claim
that they are entitled to full exoneration or discharged under their bail bond
because they had been able to surrender the accused Florentino Tolentino to the
court below. Although it may be true that the capture and surrender of the
accused was brought about by the efforts of the bondsmen to comply with their
undertaking and that by his surrender, the purpose of the bond had been
accomplished, appellants, however, can not claim full discharge because the
arrest of the accused was effected only after the order of confiscation and
forfeiture of the bond had already become final. The rule is that where the
period given to the bondsmen to produce the accused had elapsed and the accused
had not been brought before the court, the sureties can not be completely
discharged (People vs. Calabon, 53 Phil., 945; People vs. Alamada, 97 Phil,
1).
Pursuant to the uniform ruling of this Court, however, that where, even after
judgment against the bond had become final and executory, the purpose thereof
has been accomplished by the capture and surrender of the accused, the liability
of the sureties may, in the discretion of the court, be reduced or mitigated
(People vs. Reyes, 48 Phil., 139; People vs. Calabon, supra; People vs.
Puyal,[1] L-8091, February 17, 1956; People
vs. Calderon, L-9497, July 31, 1956; People vs. Daising,[2] L-6713, April 29, 1957; People vs. Tan,[3] L-6239, April 30, 1957), appellants are
entitled to a reduction of their liability under their bond, especially since
they are not compensated sureties or sureties for profit, but have put up the
bail bond of the accused Florentino Tolentino only upon considerations of
friendship and generosity, so that an even more liberal and lenient treatment
should be accorded them. Wherefore, it is.the judgment of this Court that the
liability of the bondsmen of the accused Florentino Tolentino be reduced to the
amount of P10,000.
With respect to appellants’ second assignment of error, we can not agree with
their proposition that because the court a quo had released the properties of
the deceased bondsman Mariano Tolentino from the order of execution sale and
reduced the liability of bondsman Francisco Legaspi to P100, the entire
undertaking of all the bondsmen under the bail bond has been novated or
released.
With respect to the properties of the deceased Mariano Tolentino, the order
of the court merely lifted the execution as to the same, but did not relieve the
estate of said deceased from the obligations he had undertaken by virtue of the
bond. The only purpose of “the court’s order was to afford the heirs of
Tolentino a hearing and an opportunity to establish whatever defenses they might
have against the order of forfeiture; but there is nothing to show that the
court intended to effect a discharge of Tolentino or his estate. Hence, the
latter remains bound under the original recognizance. The appellants, in turn,
have no cause for complaint against the action of the court, since the solidary
obligation assumed by them renders each one of them liable for the entirety of
the obligation, which the government, as creditor, may elect to collect from any
number of the solidary bondsmen. Of course, those who pay may in turn demand
from their co-obligors the corresponding proportional share, by way of
contribution (New Civil Code, Articles 1216 and 1217).
“ART. 1216. The creditor may proceed against any one of the solidary debtors
or some or all of them simultaneously. The demand made against one of them
shall not be an obstacle to those which may subsequently be directed against the
others, as long as the debt has not been fully collected.”“ART. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the
obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may
choose which offer to accept.He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the share which
corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment already made. If the
payment is made before the debt is due, no interest for the intervening period
may be demanded.When one of the solidary debtors cannot, because of his insolvency, reimburse
his share to the debtor paying the obligation, such, share shall be borne by all
his co-debtors, in proportion to the debt of each.”
Regarding the action of the court in reducing the liability of bondsman
Francisco Legaspi to P100, such action plainly constitutes a true remission of
the rest of the share of said Legaspi in the bond; wherefore, the release
accrues pro tanto to the benefit of the other solidary obligors (8 Manresa,
214-215). But it does not operate to discharge the entire obligation, as
contended by appellants, in the absence of any intent to do so. It must be
recalled that solidary guaranties, like that of appellants, are subject to the
rules of solidary obligations (Art. 2047, New Civil Code).
The share of each of the eleven bondsmen, in the forfeiture of P10,000, is
P909.09. The court below having lowered Legaspi’s share to P100 only, the
liability of the others should be reduced to ten thousand minus P809.09 or
P9,190.91, without prejudice to their right to collect P909.09 from the estate
of the late Mariano Tolentino, by way of contribution.
Wherefore, the orders of forfeiture and execution of the bail bond in
question are affirmed, except that its amount is hereby reduced to Pl0,000,
which the bondsmen shall, as among themselves, share in the manner indicated
herein. No costs in this instance.
So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
[1]98 Phil., 415.
[2]101 Phil., 228.
[3]101 Phil., 324.