Plaridel Surety vs.

Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operations Task Force

Doctrine

 Bail as a facet of criminal procedure is defined as the security given for the release of a person in
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court
as required under specified conditions

 Any domestic or foreign corporation, which is licensed as a surety and authorized to act as such,
may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the accused and an officer of the corporation duly
authorized by the board of directors.

 The moment the obligation of bail is assumed, the bondsman or surety becomes in law the jailer of
the accused and is subrogated to all the rights and means which the government possesses to make
his control effective of him.

Facts

The PSIC is a corporate entity engaged in insurance business and authorized to issue personal bail
bonds. It issued bonds for the temporary release of the accused. Due to the failure of the above-named
accused to appear before the trial court as required despite due notice to them and their bondsman, the
RTC ordered the forfeiture of the bonds in favor of the Government and directed the issuance of the
corresponding writs of execution by reason of the failure of the PSIC to comply with the previous order
of the court.

After the order of forfeiture, PSIC, was given 30 days within which to produce the accused and to furnish
an explanation why judgment should not be rendered against it for the amount of the bond.

PSIC filed a motion with urgent prayer to defer implementation of writs of execution. In its plea to be
relieved from liability, PSIC contended that an investigation was conducted where it was discovered that
the subject bail bonds were spurious and issued by Sañez without its authority.

The RTC denied PSIC's motion for its inability to produce the accused and likewise for its lack of
satisfactory explanation to warrant the reversal of the judgment against the bonds.

PSIC insisted that the refusal of the lower court to set aside the judgments against the bonds and quash
the corresponding writs of execution amounted to grave error given that the subject bail bonds were
spurious. It also contends that the judicial process was bypassed when the RTC refused to allow the
presentation of its witnesses.

Issued/Ruling

Whether or not PSIC should be discharged from any liability.

No. The claim of denial of due process by PSIC must be struck down. Records reveal that there was
nothing irregular as to the RTC's course of action.

Section 21 of Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 21. Forfeiture of bond. — When the presence of the accused is required by the court or these
Rules, his bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and time. If the
accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondsmen
given thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal and to show cause why no judgment
should be rendered against them for the amount, of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmen
must:

(a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-production; and

(b) explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so.

Failing in these, two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and
severally, for the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the
bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.

The bail bond having been issued and the accused released in the interim, the Rules obligate PSIC to
ensure the accused's appearance before the court. Having defaulted from such undertaking, PSIC should
bear the concomitant consequences of its non-compliance with the duty so imposed. Doubtless, the
remedy of the State against a defaulting surety once the procedure laid down by the Rules has been
followed cannot, be abrogated.