THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NEMESIO BONOAN ET AL. (BONDSMEN OF SIMEON MANDAC IN CASE NO. 6243), DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

United States versus Bonoan

The Case

This is United States versus Bonoan, a 1912 decision of the Philippine Supreme Court on the liability of bail bondsmen. The Government sued the sureties on a recognizance to recover ten thousand pesos after their principal, Simeon Mandac, failed to appear for execution of a judgment of conviction for homicide. The bondsmen lost in the Court of First Instance and appealed. The case matters because it fixes the precise moment when a bondsman's liability arises, and because it holds that the Government cannot exact the bond when it has itself made performance impossible. It is a staple of remedial law and criminal procedure on the forfeiture of bail.

Procedural History

The provincial fiscal of Ilocos Norte filed an information for homicide against Simeon Mandac in the Court of First Instance of that province. The court fixed bail at ten thousand pesos, and the appellants signed the recognizance. Mandac was convicted and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on motion of the Attorney General, declared the appeal abandoned and remanded the case for execution of judgment. Back in the Court of First Instance, the court ordered the bondsmen to produce Mandac. They could not, and the court declared the bond forfeited and gave them thirty days to explain. Their explanation was found insufficient, and final judgment was entered against them. The bondsmen appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed.

Facts

In April 1910, Simeon Mandac was charged with homicide in Ilocos Norte and released on a recognizance of ten thousand pesos signed by Nemesio Bonoan and three others. The condition of the bond was that Mandac would appear and answer the charge in whatever court it might be tried, that he would at all times hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the court, and that if convicted he would appear for judgment and render himself in satisfaction thereof.

Mandac was convicted and appealed. He went to Manila and remained there until about the twenty fourth of June, when he disappeared. He surfaced in the northern provinces organizing a band of outlaws, robbing a municipal treasury, carrying off animals and property, and kidnapping a number of priests. The Government sent a large force of the Philippine Constabulary, broke up the band, and captured Mandac. He was held in Nueva Vizcaya on a charge of bandolerismo. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court declared his appeal abandoned and remanded the case for execution.

On the third of September, the Court of First Instance ordered the bondsmen to present Mandac at once. On Monday, the fifth, they appeared and said they could not produce him on such short notice. The court declared the bond forfeited and gave them thirty days to explain. Their explanation was rejected, and final judgment was entered against them. It is admitted that when the order of September third was issued, Mandac was already legally held by the Government in Nueva Vizcaya, that the authorities refused to surrender him to the bondsmen, and that this was the first time the court had called upon them to produce him.

Issues

• Whether or not the bondsmen were relieved of liability by a new bond allegedly substituted for the original.
• Whether or not the bondsmen may be held liable when the Government itself held the principal beyond their reach and refused to surrender him.
• Whether or not the bondsmen breached the condition that the principal hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the court, when no order had yet been issued calling for his production.

Applicable Provisions

Section 76 of General Orders, Number 58, which governs the forfeiture of bail, provides:

If without sufficient cause the defendant neglects to appear for arraignment, trial or judgment, or neglects to appear on any other occasion when his presence may be required in court, or fails to surrender himself in execution of the judgment, the court must direct the fact of his neglect or failure to be entered in the records of the cause, and declare the undertaking or deposit, as the case may be, to be forfeited. But if at any time within thirty days thereafter the defendant or his counsel appears and satisfactorily explains the neglect or failure, the court may direct the forfeiture to be discharged upon such terms as it may consider just. If the forfeiture is not so discharged, the promotor fiscal shall at once proceed by action against the bail upon their undertaking.

This section supplies the sequence the Court requires: forfeiture, notice, thirty days to explain, and only then judgment against the bail.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alleged substitute bond never was accepted or approved by the court. Bondsmen cannot be relieved by merely presenting a bond that has never been approved; such a document has no place in the record.

On the second issue, the Court held for the bondsmen. The United States was both the obligee in the bond and the power that arrested and confined Mandac in Nueva Vizcaya and refused to deliver him up. The Court said it would be against all principle and justice to allow the Government to recover against the sureties for not producing their principal when it had itself placed him beyond their reach and control. There was an implied covenant that the Government would not interfere with the compliance of the conditions of the bond. The Court quoted the settled rule:

It is the settled law of this class of cases that the bail will be exonerated where the performance of the condition is rendered impossible by the act of God, the act of the obligee, or the act of the law.

On the third issue, the Court held that the liability of the bail is fixed only when the court calls upon them. The bond did not guarantee that Mandac would commit no crime while at liberty. The condition was that he hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the court, and there must be a call before an answer, an order before obedience. No order issued before September third. The Court also clarified that the earlier declaration that Mandac's appeal was abandoned was not a declaration that the bond was violated, since the bondsmen were given no hearing on that question.

Doctrine

First, the liability of bail is fixed only when the court calls upon the bondsmen to produce the principal; they are not required to present him until so called. Second, no final judgment may be entered against bondsmen unless preceded by an order of forfeiture and an opportunity to present the principal or to explain satisfactorily, exactly as Section 76 requires. Third, the bail will be exonerated where performance is rendered impossible by the act of the obligee, and the Government may not recover on the bond when it has itself placed the principal beyond the sureties' reach. Fourth, the undertaking is only that the principal hold himself amenable to the orders and processes of the court, not that he remain a law abiding citizen.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance and relieved the bondsmen of all liability, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that there must be a call before an answer and an order before obedience, so that bail liability attaches only upon the court's call. Examiners use this case on the requisites of bail forfeiture under Section 76 and on the obligee's act making performance impossible.