PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. OTIAK OMAL (ACCUSED). LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC., SURETY AND APPELLEE.

People versus Omal

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Otiak Omal, with Luzon Surety Company, Incorporated appearing as surety and appellee. The action is a State appeal from an order of the trial court cancelling a bail bond and relieving the surety of its undertaking. The case matters because it fixes the standing of a surety in criminal proceedings: the surety is the jailer of the accused, and its duty to keep the accused under surveillance continues until the bond is cancelled or the surety is lawfully discharged. It also teaches that the misconduct of jail officials does not by itself excuse the surety, and that a surety who keeps silent after the rearrest of its principal is presumed to have chosen to continue under the bond.

Procedural History

Otiak Omal was charged with robbery in band before the Justice of the Peace Court of Datu Piang, Cotabato. After preliminary investigation was waived, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, which reduced the bail from 24,000 pesos to 10,000 pesos. Luzon Surety Company filed the bond in that amount, the court approved it, and Omal was released.

After Omal disappeared, the surety filed an ex parte motion for withdrawal of the bail bond and to be relieved of responsibility. The State opposed the motion. After the surety presented evidence, the lower court issued the order cancelling the bail bond. The State appealed that order to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the thirtieth of December, 1954, Otiak Omal was charged with robbery in band in the Justice of the Peace Court of Datu Piang, Cotabato. Preliminary investigation was waived and the case went up to the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, where the bail was reduced from 24,000 pesos to 10,000 pesos. Luzon Surety Company filed the bond, the court approved it, and Omal was released.

On the tenth of August, 1956, Omal was arrested anew on a charge of rape in the same court. On the twenty-third of August of that year he was placed under the custody of the governor pending a proposal of amicable settlement, the case being private, as entered in the Provincial Jail Blotter. On the twelfth of December, 1956, the Governor of the province ordered one of his men, Candado, and the Chief of Police of Cotabato to bring Omal home because he was reported causing trouble. Omal was last seen walking toward the Governor's place with the Governor's emissaries, and thereafter he disappeared.

Only on the twentieth of December, 1957 did the surety file an ex parte motion to withdraw the bail bond and be relieved of responsibility, alleging that it had exerted efforts to find Omal but could not locate him, that it had reason to believe its efforts would prove fruitless, and that had the Provincial Warden and the Provincial Governor performed their duties well, it would have had no difficulty surrendering him. The State opposed the motion because the surety did not ask for cancellation when Omal was rearrested on the rape charge, but only after he had disappeared.

Issues

• Whether or not the bail bond may be cancelled and the surety discharged on the ground that the inability to produce the accused was due to the negligence or irregular conduct of the Provincial Warden and the Provincial Governor.
• Whether or not the surety's silence after the rearrest of the accused, without informing the court or asking for cancellation of the bond, amounts to a choice to continue under the bond and makes it accountable for the accused's escape.
• Whether or not the surety exerted all possible efforts to arrest or cause the arrest of the accused.

Applicable Provisions

Section 16 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Thus, it is there provided that the bail bond shall be cancelled and the sureties discharged of liability (a) where the sureties so request upon surrender of the defendant to the court; (b) where the defendant is re-arrested or ordered into custody on the same charge or for the same offense; (c) where the defendant is discharged by the court at any stage of the proceedings, or acquitted, or is convicted and surrendered to serve the sentence; and (d) where the defendant dies during the pendency of the action.

This provision supplies the exclusive modes of discharge, and the surety took none of them when Omal was rearrested.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the negligence of the Provincial Warden and the Provincial Governor, even if true, does not justify cancellation of the bond. A surety is the jailer of the accused and is responsible for his custody. It is not merely the surety's right but its obligation to keep the accused at all times under surveillance, because its authority as surety is no more nor less than the Government's authority to hold the accused under preventive imprisonment. The surety should not have allowed the irregular conduct of the Warden and the Governor to go on until it ended in escape, and it is equally chargeable with negligence.

On the second issue, the Court held that even where performance of the bond is rendered impossible by the act of God, the act of the obligee, or the act of the law, the surety must inform the court of the happening of the event so that the court may act or decree discharge. The surety took no such step when Omal was rearrested, and asked for cancellation only after the escape. Quoting its earlier ruling, the Court said:

Since at that time his bond was still valid and binding, and notwithstanding the re-arrest of the accused the surety kept silent, it must be presumed that the surety chose to continue with its liability under the bond and should be held accountable for what may later happen to the accused.

The Court also quoted the rule that the subsequent arrest of the principal on another charge does not operate ipso facto as a discharge of his bail, and that if while in custody on another charge he escapes, the bail are bound to produce him.

On the third issue, the Court found no sufficient evidence that the surety had exerted all possible efforts to arrest Omal. That rearrest was not impossible was shown by his surrender to the Provincial Government of Cotabato on the twenty-eighth of November, 1958, after which he was confined at the provincial jail.

Doctrine

A surety is the jailer of the accused and is absolutely responsible for his custody. Its authority is no more nor less than the Government's authority to hold the accused under preventive imprisonment, and its duty to keep him under surveillance continues until the bond is cancelled or the surety is discharged under Section 16 of Rule 110.

The negligence or irregular conduct of jail officials does not excuse the surety, which is equally chargeable with negligence for allowing such conduct to continue until escape.

Even when performance is rendered impossible by the act of God, the act of the obligee, or the act of the law, the surety must inform the court of the event so that discharge may be decreed. Silence after the rearrest of the principal raises the presumption that the surety chose to continue under the bond and is accountable for the subsequent escape.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the order appealed from, with costs, and held the surety liable under the bond, without prejudice to its filing a motion for cancellation with the lower court if Omal is still in the custody of the proper authorities.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the surety is the jailer of the accused, and its silence after rearrest is a choice to remain bound. Examiners use this case on bail bonds, suretyship, and the discharge of sureties under Section 16 of Rule 110.