You are on page 1of 5

G.R. No.

L-2508 October 27, 1950


THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff -appellee,
vs. MAMERTO ANER, ET AL.,defendants.
ROERTO SOLER AN! !OMINGO AELLA, bondsmen-
appellants.
Reyes and Dy-Liacco for appellants.
First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor
Luis R. Feria for appellee.
PARAS, J.: chanrobles virtual law library
In a complaint signed by Lt. Fernando G. Regino, P. ., with the
heading !In the "ustice of the Peace #ourt of $inambac, #amarines
%ur,! &amerto bner was charged, with others, with robbery in
band with rape committed in the municipality of $inambac, Province
of #amarines %ur. 'pon motion of the assistant provincial fiscal of
%eptember (, )*+(, alleging that the ,ustice of the peace of
$inambac was absent and the municipal mayor refused to receive
the complaint, the #ourt of First Instance of #amarines %ur directed
the "ustice of the Peace of -aga, the capital, to conduct the
necessary preliminary investigation. &amerto bner was thereafter
admitted to bail and the herein appellants, Roberto %oler and
.omingo bella, e/ecuted the necessary bail bond for P)0,111
dated 2ctober +, )*+(, and approved by the "ustice of the Peace of
-aga on the same date. -otwithstanding notice, the accused bner
and his bondsmen failed to appear at the preliminary investigation
set for &arch 3(, )*+4. 2n pril 3, )*+4, bner, through counsel,
filed a petition waiving the right to a preliminary investigation. 5y
order of pril 0, )*+4, the "ustice of the Peace of -aga forwarded
the case in respect to bner to the #ourt of First Instance of
#amarines %ur. 2n &ay 6, )*+4, the provincial fiscal filed the
corresponding information in the #ourt of First Instance of
#amarines %ur. $he trial originally set for -ovember 30, )*+4, was
postponed to "anuary )(, )*+6, but upon motion of appellants, the
trial was set for &arch 3, )*+6. 2n February 36, )*+6, the
appellants filed a motion for another e/tension of thirty days within
which to produce the body of bner, which was granted, and the
trial was again postponed to &arch 3*, )*+6. 2n this date, bner
and the appellants failed to appear. $he provincial fiscal accordingly
filed a petition for the confiscation of the bail bond e/ecuted by the
herein appellants, and the same was granted by the #ourt of First
Instance of #amarines %ur in its order of &arch 7), )*+6. From this
order the bondsmen have appealed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
ppellants contend that the court of first instance did not ac8uire
,urisdiction, because no complaint was filed in the "ustice of Peace
#ourt of $inambac, and reliance is placed on the allegation of the
fiscal, in his motion of %eptember (, )*+(, that the complaint
signed by Lieutenant Regino was not so filed in view of the absence
of the ,ustice of the peace and the refusal of the municipal mayor of
$inambac to receive said complaint. It appears, however, that the
bond e/ecuted by the appellants on 2ctober +, )*+(, contained the
following recital9 ! complaint having been filed on %eptember )4,
)*+( in the ,ustice of the Peace #ourt of $inambac, #amarines
%ur ..! $his admission, which is subse8uent to the motion of the
fiscal of %eptember (, )*+(, is inconsistent with appellants:
contention. &oreover, the proceedings had before the "ustice of the
Peace of -aga and the #ourt of First Instance of #amarines %ur, in
relation to the measures ta;en by the appellants prior to the
confiscation of their bond, carry the implication that the complaint
was duly filed. $he presumption that official duty was performed has
not been destroyed. lthough the "ustice of the peace has
,urisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations only of offenses
committed within his municipality, the ,ustice of the peace of the
provincial capital, when, as in the case at bar, directed by the court
of the first instance, may conduct such preliminary investigation of
any offense committed anywhere within his province. <%ec. 3, Rule
)16, Rules of #ourt.=chanrobles virtual law library
It appears that the bond in 8uestion was not signed by the accused
bner as principal> and it is contended by the appellants that it is
accordingly void. %ection ), Rule ))1, of the Rules #ourt, provides
that !bail is the security re8uired and given for the release of a
person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before
any court in which his appearance may be re8uired as stipulated in
the bail bond or recogni?ance.! 'nder this, there are two methods
of ta;ing bail9 <)= by bail bond and <3= by recogni?ance. bail bond
is an obligation given by the accused with one or more sureties,
with the condition to be void upon the performance by the accused
of such acts as he may legally be re8uired to perform.
recogni?ance is an obligation of record, entered into before some
court or magistrate duly authori?ed to ta;e it, with the condition to
do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases
being the appearance of the accused for trial. <&oran, #omments on
the Rules of #ourt, 3d ed., @ol. II, page 0*3.= In '. %. vs. %unico et
al., +6 Phil., 63(, 67+, this court, citing Lamphire vs. %tate, 47 -.
A., +(3> (3 tl., 46(> ( m. B Cng. nn. #as., ()0, defined a
recogni?ance as !a contract between the sureties and the %tate for
the production of the principal at the re8uired time.! $he bail bond
e/ecuted by the appellants, though so denominated, is essentially a
recogni?ance, an !obligation! contracted with the %tate by the
appellants, not re8uiring as an indispensable condition for its
validity, the signature of the accused. In addition, under the
circumstances of this case, the appellants were estopped from
assailing the effectiveness of their bail contract. If, as contended by
appellants, it would be difficult, without the accused bner having
signed as principal, for them to obtain indemnity from or to have
power and control over him, $hey are solely to blame. -either is
there merit in the argument that the obligation of appellants under
the bond is merely to pay P)0,111 in case the accused should fail to
pay that amount, because the latter, who has not signed it, is of
course not bound thereby.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
ppellants allege that the Government had launched a campaign for
the capture of bner, dead or alive, as a result of which he is forced
to remain in hiding. $hus the appellants are allegedly unable to
produce him in court, due to an act of the Government. In the order
of the trial court denying appellants: motion for reconsideration,
however, it is recited that !if the government launched the campaign
against bner and his followers in $inambac and Partido during the
months of "uly up to, .ecember, )*+4, it was because &amerto
bner and his gang have turned out brigands who threatened to
disturb the peace and tran8uillity of the people in that part of the
Province of #amarines %ur.! Aence the alleged search for bner was
motivated by his own voluntary act and cannot, therefore, be
invo;ed by appellants. <'. %. vs. %unico,supra.=chanrobles virtual law library
$he appealed order is affirmed with costs against the appellants. %o
ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Moran, Benzon, !. "., #ablo, $uason, Monte%ayor and Reyes, "".,
concur. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Se"#r#te O"$%$o%& chanrobles virtual law library
chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
FERIA, J., concurring9chanrobles virtual law library
I concur in the decision with the following modification in connection
with the necessity of defendant:s signature in his bail bond.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
bail bond in criminal cases is an obligation subscribed, not by the
accused, but by two or more sureties for the release of the
defendant who is in the custody of the law, conditioned upon that
the latter will appear before any court in which his appearance may
be re8uired. It is not different from reconizance, and for that
reason Rule ))1 of the Rules of #ourt uses the word bail bond and
recogni?ance interchangeably. $hat the law does not re8uire that
the bail be subscribed or signed by the accused is shown by the
provisions of section * which re8uire that, !in case there are only
two sureties, each must be worth the amount specified in the
underta;ing over and above all ,ust debts etc.!> by section )0 which
provides that, when the appearance of the defendant is re8uired by
the court, his sureties, and not the accused, shall be notified to
produce him or a given date in compliance with their obligation
stipulated in the bail bond. nd if the defendant fails to appear as
re8uired, the bond is declared forfeited and the bondsmen are given
thirty days within which to produce the accused, and to show cause
why a ,udgment shall not be rendered against them for the amount
of their bond> and !failing in these two re8uisites, a ,udgement shall
be rendered against the bondsmen! <not against the accused=> by
section )4 which provides that, !for the purpose of surrendering the
defendant, that bailors may arrest him, or on a written authority
endorsed on a certified copy of the underta;ing may cause him to
be arrested! and specially by the form or bail bond found in General
2rder -o. 06, which has not been modified or repealed by the Rules
of #ourt. <5andoy vs. "udge of First Instance of Laguna )+ Phil.,
(31, (30.=