G.R. No. 26324 , February 23, 1927
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. UY ENG HUI, ET AL., defendants. MARIANO GRANADOS and FRANCISCO SEVILLA, bondsmen-appellants.

DOCTRINE:
A bail bond is forfeited upon the accused’s failure to appear on the date set for trial. The subsequent surrender of the accused or the dismissal of the criminal case does not cure the breach or automatically exonerate the bondsmen. To be relieved from the forfeiture, the bondsmen must, within thirty (30) days from notice of the forfeiture, satisfactorily show that the accused’s failure to appear was due to a sufficient cause not attributable to the accused’s own negligence.

FACTS

1. Uy Eng Hui, along with Ang Ka and Ong Malic, was charged with violating the Opium Law. Appellants Mariano Granados and Francisco Sevilla posted a P500 bail bond for Uy Eng Hui.
2. Uy Eng Hui departed for China. Consequently, when the case was called for trial on December 9, 1925, he failed to appear. The trial proceeded against his co-accused, who were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
3. On December 28, 1925, the trial court declared the bail bond forfeited and ordered Uy Eng Hui’s arrest. The bondsmen were notified of the forfeiture on January 2, 1926.
4. On February 8, 1926, the court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution against the bondsmen. As insufficient property was found, a writ of garnishment was later issued against their bank deposits.
5. On March 25, 1926, the bondsmen finally surrendered Uy Eng Hui to the sheriff. They then filed a petition to set aside the forfeiture and release the garnished funds.
6. Meanwhile, on April 22, 1926, upon the fiscal’s motion (due to the weak evidence as shown in the trial of the co-accused), the court dismissed the criminal case against Uy Eng Hui.
7. On July 12, 1926, the trial court denied the bondsmen’s petition to set aside the forfeiture. The bondsmen appealed.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in refusing to set aside the forfeiture of the bail bond despite the subsequent surrender of the accused and the dismissal of the criminal case against him?

RULING

NO, the trial court did not err. The order denying the motion to set aside the forfeiture is affirmed.

1. The Forfeiture was Proper: The forfeiture of the bond was correctly declared under Section 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Rule 114, Section 21 of the Rules of Court) due to the accused’s failure to appear at trial. The proceedings followed the proper form established in *U.S. vs. Pagdayuman*.

2. Subsequent Events Do Not Cure the Breach: The accused’s voluntary departure to China, which caused his non-appearance, constituted a clear and inexcusable breach of the bond’s condition. Neither his subsequent surrender nor the dismissal of the case cured this prior breach. The dismissal was based on the prosecution’s lack of evidence, not on the accused’s innocence or the propriety of his absence.

3. Bondsmen Failed to Show Cause for Relief: The law grants bondsmen a 30-day period from notice of forfeiture to show cause why it should not be enforced. To be relieved, they must prove that the accused’s failure to appear was due to a sufficient cause not imputable to the accused’s own negligence. Here, the bondsmen failed to provide any such explanation within the 30-day period. Their motion for an extension to surrender the accused, filed near the end of the period, was either denied or overruled.

4. Surrender After Forfeiture is Ineffective: The Court clarified that Section 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (contemplating exoneration for surrendering the accused) applies only if the surrender is made before the court declares the bond forfeited. In this case, the surrender on March 25, 1926, occurred long after the forfeiture order of December 28, 1925.

5. No Defect in the Forfeiture Order: The bondsmen’s argument that the forfeiture order was defective for not requiring them to show cause was rejected. The law places the burden on the bondsmen to proactively show cause within the 30-day period to avoid execution.

CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture, ruling that the bondsmen were liable because the breach of the bond condition (the accused’s non-appearance) was complete and inexcusable at the time it occurred, and they failed to avail themselves of the statutory remedy for relief within the prescribed period.