G.R. No. L-13638; February 24, 1920
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TOMAS SUNICO and NG CHIONG, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
On August 9, 1915, Lao Yong was convicted for illegal importation of opium. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court on October 14, 1916. The case was remanded to the Court of First Instance for execution of sentence. The appellees, Tomas Sunico and Ng Chiong, were sureties on Lao Yong’s bail bond. They were ordered to produce Lao Yong on November 14, 1916. Upon their failure to do so, the court declared their bond forfeited and gave them 30 days to produce the principal and show cause why judgment should not be rendered against them.

Within the 30-day period, the sureties filed several motions for extension, citing reasons such as Lao Yong’s alleged detention in Calcutta and later his illness in Macao. The court granted these extensions. Finally, on August 16, 1917, the sureties informed the court they had received a cablegram stating Lao Yong died in Macao on August 13, 1917. The trial court, acting on the hypothesis that Lao Yong had died, issued an order on December 26, 1917, absolving the sureties from liability under the bond. The Government appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the death of the principal (Lao Yong) after the forfeiture of the bail bond but before the rendition of final judgment against the sureties constitutes a sufficient cause to exonerate the sureties from their liability.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court and ordered the rendition of judgment against the sureties.

The Court held that under Section 76 of General Orders No. 58 (the Code of Criminal Procedure), to discharge a forfeiture, the accused or his counsel must, within 30 days, appear and satisfactorily explain the failure to appear. For sureties to be exonerated, they must: (1) produce the body of the principal or give a reason for its non-production, and (2) provide a satisfactory explanation for the principal’s initial failure to appear.

The Court ruled that the satisfactory explanations contemplated by law are those where performance is rendered impossible by an act of God, the act of the obligee, or the act of the law. While the death of the principal before the day of performance is an act of God that exonerates the bail, the death of the principal after a default and forfeiture has occurred does not relieve the sureties of their liability. The obligation of the bond was breached the moment the principal failed to appear on the required date (November 14, 1916). The subsequent death of the principal nearly nine months after the forfeiture did not nullify the prior breach or constitute a satisfactory explanation for that initial failure.

The extensions granted by the trial court did not erase the forfeiture; they merely provided additional time for the sureties to comply with the original order and show cause. Since the sureties failed to provide a legally satisfactory excuse for Lao Yong’s non-appearance on November 14, 1916, they remained liable. The Court rendered judgment against the sureties, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bond (P3,500).