1. Art 28.

Computation of Penalties
People vs. Enriquez, No. L-13006. February 29, 1960
Facts:
Horacio Tan was found guilty of estafa by judgment of the Court of Appeals, jointly
with two other accused and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 2
years, 11 months, and 10 days of prisión correccional to 6 years, 8 months and 20
days of prisión mayor. The judgment having been forwarded to the court below for
execution, Horacio Tan, through counsel, presented a motion dated December 7,
1955, praying that the promulgation of the sentence scheduled for December 9, 1955,
at 8:30 a.m., be postponed for at least two weeks and that in the meanwhile Horacio
Tan be allowed his provisional liberty upon the filing of a bond which the court may
fix. This motion was granted and on December 9, 1955, Judge Bayona postponed the
reading of the sentence to December 27, 1955. In consequence the court recalled the
commitment issued on December 6, 1955 and fixed the bond for the provisional liberty
of the accused at P10,000. The order is dated December 14, 1955.

The accused in case at bar was convicted by the Court of First Instance. He appealed
to the Court of Appeals, and in the meantime he was detained in jail. The Court of
Appeals found him guilty and its judgment was forwarded to the lower court for
execution. The accused filed a motion praying that the promulgation of the sentence
be postponed. The court recalled the commitment order it had previously issued and
fixed the bond for the provisional release of the accused. The bond was accordingly
posted. After another postponement of the reading of the sentence, the judge entered
an order for the immediate arrest of the accused. An alias warrant for the arrest of the
accused was issued to the bondsman upon its request, but after a specified number of
days had elapsed without the bondsman producing the body of the accused, the judge
entered an order asking the bondsman to show cause why the bond should not be
forfeited. Judgment was entered against the bond. The bondsman contends that the
accused was already committed in jail and in virtue of the execution of the judgment
of the Court of Appeals, hence, the bond should not be confiscated.

Issue: Whether or not the commitment issued invalidates the confiscation of the entire
bond?

Held: The accused could not be considered as committed or placed in jail by virtue of
the decision of the Court of Appeals, although he was already in jail when that
judgment was received. The fact that his custody as a mere appellant pending appeal
continued, and the receipt of the decision of the Court of Appeals, did not change the
detention of the accused into service of the judgment. The reading of the sentence was
still a necessary step previous to the actual commitment of the accused.

Facts: Horacio Tan was found guilty f estafa by Court of First Instance of Manila to
which he appealed to CA. CA affirmed the decision and ordered the lower court for
execution of judgment. Tan filed a motion to postpone the promulgation of his
sentence by two weeks and grant him provisional liberty upon filing of bond. The
Court granted his request and bond was entered for Php 10k with Php500.xx to be
paid immediately by Globe Assurance Inc. The promulgation was requested for
reschedule by Tan’s counsel thrice. The judge entered an order for Tan’s immediate
arrest after failing to appear in court since the last request was not granted by the
Court. The judge ordered bondsman Rodolfo Enriquez to explain why the entire bond
not be confiscated after not being able to produce the body of accused. Also the Php
500.xx was only paid by Globe in full more than a month after since the check they
issued was not honoured by the bank. Globe contended that the accused was already
committed in jail and by virtue of CA’s decision the bond should not be confiscated.
Issue: Whether or not the commitment issued invalidates the confiscation of the entire
bond?
Decision: Decision modified, appellant ordered to pay the sum of Php 3k of its bond.
Tan could not be considered as committed to jail by virtue of CA’s decision. The fact
that his custody as appellant pending appeal continued, and the receipt of the
decision of CA, did not change the detention of Tan into service of judgment. The
Court was within legal rights to order confiscation of the bond when Globe failed to
immediately pay. Immediate payment does not necessarily require payment on the
same day but payment within reasonable time and without intentional delay. The
Court believes that reduction to php3k should be made as warning to bond companies
not to execute bonds unless they have funds to meet such obligations.

2. Preventive Imprisonment
People vs. Abanes, No. L-30609, September 28, 1976