GR 42118 20; (April, 1935) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 42118-42120; April 25, 1935
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner-appellant, vs. EUGENIO UY TUISING, defendant. LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC., respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Eugenio Uy Tuising was convicted in three criminal cases and appealed. The Luzon Surety Company, Inc. posted appeal bonds for his provisional release. While the appeals were pending in the Supreme Court, Uy Tuising withdrew his appeals, leading to their dismissal and the remand of the cases to the trial court on January 5, 1932. On January 12, 1932, the trial court, through its clerk, sent a notice to the surety company requiring it to produce Uy Tuising. The surety received the notice on January 15, 1932, but failed to produce him. On January 22, 1932, the provincial fiscal moved for confiscation of the bonds, but requested the court to delay action until February 27, 1932, when the court issued the confiscation order. The surety was given 30 days (later extended) to produce the accused. After the extension, the surety moved to be relieved from its obligation and to vacate the confiscation order, claiming Uy Tuising had died in Amoy, China, on January 27, 1932. The trial court granted the motion, finding the death sufficiently proven. The People appealed, arguing the surety should still be liable on the bonds.
ISSUE
Whether the surety company should be compelled to satisfy the bail bonds despite the alleged death of the accused after the surety had already violated the conditions of the bond by failing to produce the accused when first required.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and reinstated the confiscation of the bonds. The Court held that the conditions of the appeal bonds required the accused to surrender himself and hold himself amenable to court orders. The surety’s obligation was to keep the accused under its surveillance and within the jurisdiction. By allowing the accused to leave the Philippines (as evidenced by his alleged death abroad), the surety violated the bond terms. The violation occurred on January 15, 1932, when the surety, having received the notice to produce, failed to do so without excuse. The alleged death on January 27, 1932, was irrelevant because the breach had already taken place prior to that date. The surety’s liability attached upon its failure to comply with the court’s lawful demand to produce the accused.
AI Generated by Armztrong.