THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff -appellee, vs. MAMERTO ANER, ET AL.,defendants. ROERTO SOLER AN! !OMINGO AELLA, bondsmen- appellants. Reyes and Dy-Liacco for appellants. First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Luis R. Feria for appellee. PARAS, J.: chanrobles virtual law library In a complaint signed by Lt. Fernando G. Regino, P. ., with the heading !In the "ustice of the Peace #ourt of $inambac, #amarines %ur,! &amerto bner was charged, with others, with robbery in band with rape committed in the municipality of $inambac, Province of #amarines %ur. 'pon motion of the assistant provincial fiscal of %eptember (, )*+(, alleging that the ,ustice of the peace of $inambac was absent and the municipal mayor refused to receive the complaint, the #ourt of First Instance of #amarines %ur directed the "ustice of the Peace of -aga, the capital, to conduct the necessary preliminary investigation. &amerto bner was thereafter admitted to bail and the herein appellants, Roberto %oler and .omingo bella, e/ecuted the necessary bail bond for P)0,111 dated 2ctober +, )*+(, and approved by the "ustice of the Peace of -aga on the same date. -otwithstanding notice, the accused bner and his bondsmen failed to appear at the preliminary investigation set for &arch 3(, )*+4. 2n pril 3, )*+4, bner, through counsel, filed a petition waiving the right to a preliminary investigation. 5y order of pril 0, )*+4, the "ustice of the Peace of -aga forwarded the case in respect to bner to the #ourt of First Instance of #amarines %ur. 2n &ay 6, )*+4, the provincial fiscal filed the corresponding information in the #ourt of First Instance of #amarines %ur. $he trial originally set for -ovember 30, )*+4, was postponed to "anuary )(, )*+6, but upon motion of appellants, the trial was set for &arch 3, )*+6. 2n February 36, )*+6, the appellants filed a motion for another e/tension of thirty days within which to produce the body of bner, which was granted, and the trial was again postponed to &arch 3*, )*+6. 2n this date, bner and the appellants failed to appear. $he provincial fiscal accordingly filed a petition for the confiscation of the bail bond e/ecuted by the herein appellants, and the same was granted by the #ourt of First Instance of #amarines %ur in its order of &arch 7), )*+6. From this order the bondsmen have appealed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary ppellants contend that the court of first instance did not ac8uire ,urisdiction, because no complaint was filed in the "ustice of Peace #ourt of $inambac, and reliance is placed on the allegation of the fiscal, in his motion of %eptember (, )*+(, that the complaint signed by Lieutenant Regino was not so filed in view of the absence of the ,ustice of the peace and the refusal of the municipal mayor of $inambac to receive said complaint. It appears, however, that the bond e/ecuted by the appellants on 2ctober +, )*+(, contained the following recital9 ! complaint having been filed on %eptember )4, )*+( in the ,ustice of the Peace #ourt of $inambac, #amarines %ur ..! $his admission, which is subse8uent to the motion of the fiscal of %eptember (, )*+(, is inconsistent with appellants: contention. &oreover, the proceedings had before the "ustice of the Peace of -aga and the #ourt of First Instance of #amarines %ur, in relation to the measures ta;en by the appellants prior to the confiscation of their bond, carry the implication that the complaint was duly filed. $he presumption that official duty was performed has not been destroyed. lthough the "ustice of the peace has ,urisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations only of offenses committed within his municipality, the ,ustice of the peace of the provincial capital, when, as in the case at bar, directed by the court of the first instance, may conduct such preliminary investigation of any offense committed anywhere within his province. <%ec. 3, Rule )16, Rules of #ourt.=chanrobles virtual law library It appears that the bond in 8uestion was not signed by the accused bner as principal> and it is contended by the appellants that it is accordingly void. %ection ), Rule ))1, of the Rules #ourt, provides that !bail is the security re8uired and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be re8uired as stipulated in the bail bond or recogni?ance.! 'nder this, there are two methods of ta;ing bail9 <)= by bail bond and <3= by recogni?ance. bail bond is an obligation given by the accused with one or more sureties, with the condition to be void upon the performance by the accused of such acts as he may legally be re8uired to perform. recogni?ance is an obligation of record, entered into before some court or magistrate duly authori?ed to ta;e it, with the condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases being the appearance of the accused for trial. <&oran, #omments on the Rules of #ourt, 3d ed., @ol. II, page 0*3.= In '. %. vs. %unico et al., +6 Phil., 63(, 67+, this court, citing Lamphire vs. %tate, 47 -. A., +(3> (3 tl., 46(> ( m. B Cng. nn. #as., ()0, defined a recogni?ance as !a contract between the sureties and the %tate for the production of the principal at the re8uired time.! $he bail bond e/ecuted by the appellants, though so denominated, is essentially a recogni?ance, an !obligation! contracted with the %tate by the appellants, not re8uiring as an indispensable condition for its validity, the signature of the accused. In addition, under the circumstances of this case, the appellants were estopped from assailing the effectiveness of their bail contract. If, as contended by appellants, it would be difficult, without the accused bner having signed as principal, for them to obtain indemnity from or to have power and control over him, $hey are solely to blame. -either is there merit in the argument that the obligation of appellants under the bond is merely to pay P)0,111 in case the accused should fail to pay that amount, because the latter, who has not signed it, is of course not bound thereby.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library ppellants allege that the Government had launched a campaign for the capture of bner, dead or alive, as a result of which he is forced to remain in hiding. $hus the appellants are allegedly unable to produce him in court, due to an act of the Government. In the order of the trial court denying appellants: motion for reconsideration, however, it is recited that !if the government launched the campaign against bner and his followers in $inambac and Partido during the months of "uly up to, .ecember, )*+4, it was because &amerto bner and his gang have turned out brigands who threatened to disturb the peace and tran8uillity of the people in that part of the Province of #amarines %ur.! Aence the alleged search for bner was motivated by his own voluntary act and cannot, therefore, be invo;ed by appellants. <'. %. vs. %unico,supra.=chanrobles virtual law library $he appealed order is affirmed with costs against the appellants. %o ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Moran, Benzon, !. "., #ablo, $uason, Monte%ayor and Reyes, ""., concur. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary chanrobles virtual lawlibrary Se"#r#te O"$%$o%& chanrobles virtual law library chanrobles virtual lawlibrary FERIA, J., concurring9chanrobles virtual law library I concur in the decision with the following modification in connection with the necessity of defendant:s signature in his bail bond.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library bail bond in criminal cases is an obligation subscribed, not by the accused, but by two or more sureties for the release of the defendant who is in the custody of the law, conditioned upon that the latter will appear before any court in which his appearance may be re8uired. It is not different from reconizance, and for that reason Rule ))1 of the Rules of #ourt uses the word bail bond and recogni?ance interchangeably. $hat the law does not re8uire that the bail be subscribed or signed by the accused is shown by the provisions of section * which re8uire that, !in case there are only two sureties, each must be worth the amount specified in the underta;ing over and above all ,ust debts etc.!> by section )0 which provides that, when the appearance of the defendant is re8uired by the court, his sureties, and not the accused, shall be notified to produce him or a given date in compliance with their obligation stipulated in the bail bond. nd if the defendant fails to appear as re8uired, the bond is declared forfeited and the bondsmen are given thirty days within which to produce the accused, and to show cause why a ,udgment shall not be rendered against them for the amount of their bond> and !failing in these two re8uisites, a ,udgement shall be rendered against the bondsmen! <not against the accused=> by section )4 which provides that, !for the purpose of surrendering the defendant, that bailors may arrest him, or on a written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the underta;ing may cause him to be arrested! and specially by the form or bail bond found in General 2rder -o. 06, which has not been modified or repealed by the Rules of #ourt. <5andoy vs. "udge of First Instance of Laguna )+ Phil., (31, (30.=