CITATION: G.R. Nos.

156687-88 DATE: May 21, 2009

PANFILO D. BONGCAC, Petitioner, vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FORTUNATO
LIM, and TORIBIO BON, Respondents.

Mode of Appeal/ Review to the SC:

Petition for review on certiorari.
FACTS:
Bongcac (Petitioner) and the secretary of the Mayor of Tagbilaran City was designated as the
"Mayor’s representative to the City Market Committee," "Consultant and Coordinator on market matters,"
and "adviser to the Acting Market Administrator and was charged with two counts of Estafa defined and
penalized under Article 315, 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code before the Sandiganbayan. Upon arraignment,
the petitioner pleaded not guilty. Sandiganbayan rendered judgement finding guilty of estafa both guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the motion was denied. Subsequently, petitioner
filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court sought for the reversal of the Decision of
the Sandiganbayan but was denied through resolution for (a) failure of the petition to sufficiently show that
the Sandiganbayan committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution; and (b) failure
of the petition to show extraordinary circumstance justifying a departure from the established doctrine that
findings of facts of the Sandiganbayan are well-nigh conclusive on this Court and will not be reviewed or
disturbed on appeal. No motion for reconsideration was filed and the resolution is final and executory. The
Sandiganbayan issued a notice to petitioner and counsel directing them to be present for the execution of
judgment in the criminal cases. Meanwhile, petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan, a Manifestation and
Very Urgent Motion to Suspend Further Proceedings praying that the execution of judgment be held in
abeyance to await the action of this Court on the Very Urgent Petition for Extraordinary Relief but was
denied for lack of merit. It further directed the issuance of a bench warrant of arrest against petitioner to
serve the sentence imposed upon him. The cash bond posted by petitioner for his temporary liberty was
ordered cancelled. Petitioner was given five days to voluntarily surrender
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in cancelling the petitioner’s cash bailbond.
RULING:

No, the Sandiganbayan didn’t made a mistake for cancelling the petioner’s cash bailbond. The
cancellation of the cash bailbond was due to the execution of the final judgement of the conviction

CONTENTION:
Petitioner’s contention is a Manifestation and Very Urgent Motion to Suspend Further
Proceedings praying that the execution of judgment be held in abeyance to await the action of this Court
on the Very Urgent Petition for Extraordinary Relief.
DOCTRINE:
Cancellation of Bail
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE TO THE CASE:

Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure Rule 114 Bail of Section 22. Cancellation of bail
provides that upon application of the bondsmen, with due notice to the prosecutor, the bail may be cancelled
upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death. The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon
acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of conviction. In all instances,
the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bail. (22a)

In this case, the cancellation of the cash bailbond of Panfilo D. Bongcac (Petitioner) is deemed
automatically cancelled upon the execution of the judgement of conviction of the crime he comitted and
the the Sandiganbayan did not err in cancelling petitioner’s cash bailbond.