Bongcac v.

Sandiganbayan
May 21, 2009
Facts:
Panfilo D. Bongcac was the Consultant and Coordinator on market matters of Tagbilaran City, Bohol. He
was charged with 2 counts of estafa by Engr. Fortunato Lim and Toribio Bon for his failure to account for
the payment of the stalls or tiendas constructed by the 2 individuals. The Court Division of Sandiganbayan
found him guilty of the 2 charges of estafa. After several petitions and appeal, the Court Division of
Sandiganbayan executed its final decision over the case of Mr. Bongcac issuing for the bench warrant of
arrest for him to serve the imposed sentence upon him and the court also ordered for the cancellation of
his bail bond. But, Mr. Bongcac said that such act is inappropriate.
Issue:
WON the Sandiganbayn gravely abused its discretion when it cancelled the bail bond of Bongcac?
Held:
No. Such cancellation by the Sandiganbayan is in accordance with the 2nd paragraph of Sec.22 of Rule
114.
This is of course, we already know, automatic cause for cancellation. He was convicted and the conviction
became final and executory so obviously, there’s no use for the bail bond anymore because what’s the
purpose? Purpose is for him to have temporary liberty and to assure his appearance in court when
required. He will no longer be required to appear because he is already convicted by final judgment and
he does not need temporary liberty so the bail bond is cancelled. If it is cash, it will be returned, property
will be returned to whoever put it up.

People v. Cawaling
April 17, 2009
Facts: Cawaling was charged with murder. He posted bail – property bond and thereafter he jumped bail.
Upon conviction, the bondsman requested the court to withdraw the property bond and in lieu thereof,
a cash bond will be posted again.
Issue: WON the property bond can be withdrawn and cash bond be posted?
Held: NO. Sec. 22 of Rule 114 is explicit that the bondsman must surrender the accused before the bond
can be cancelled or that the debt of the accused must be proved. The accused jumped bail and so there
was this obligation of the bondsman to surrender him and bring him to court and then he was convicted.
Conviction under sec. 22 results to automatic cancellation of bail. The question is, the bail should be
cancelled because he was convicted? NO! why? Because there is a failure to execute the conviction
because he escaped. With the conviction of Cawaling for murder, and the Court’s consequent failure to
execute the judgment of conviction because of Cawaling’s flight, the motion must be denied. The posted
property bond cannot be cancelled, much less withdrawn and replaced with a cash bond by movant Cruz,
unless Cawaling is surrendered to the Court, or adequate proof of his death is presented. We are not
unmindful that Cruz posted the property bond simply to accommodate Cawaling, a relative, obtain
provisional liberty. However, under Section 1 of Rule 114, Cruz, as a bondsman, guarantees the
appearance of the accused before any court as required under specified conditions.