Case Summary (G.R. No. 135012)
Facts
Petitioner posted cash bail in the amount of P20,000.00 for each of four criminal cases to secure the accused’s provisional liberty. While those cases were pending, the accused was charged in another criminal case, arrested and detained. Petitioner declined to post another bail on account of the subsequent arrest and, on June 18, 1998, filed an application with the trial court seeking cancellation of the cash bonds she had posted, asserting that she was "surrendering the accused" as certified by the City Jail Warden.
Procedural history
The trial court, in an Order dated July 9, 1998, denied petitioner’s application for cancellation of the cash bail, reasoning that the accused’s arrest for another charge did not constitute a voluntary surrender by the surety and that cash deposited as bail is considered the accused’s deposit and is in custodia legis to be applied for fines and costs. A motion for reconsideration was filed and denied by Order dated August 20, 1998. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue presented
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s application to cancel cash bail on the ground that the accused was in custody for a subsequent charge and that the petitioner had thereby surrendered the accused to the court.
Relevant statutory provisions
- Section 22, Rule 114 (formerly Section 19) — Cancellation of bail: permits cancellation upon application of bondsmen with due notice to the prosecutor where there is surrender of the accused or proof of death; cancellation is automatic upon acquittal, dismissal or execution of judgment, and is without prejudice to any liability on the bail.
- Section 14, Rule 114 (formerly Section 11) — Deposit of cash as bail: permits the accused or any person on his behalf to deposit cash as bail with appropriate treasury officers; requires submission of certificate of deposit and written undertaking; provides that the money deposited shall be considered bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs, with any excess returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit.
Court’s analysis as to Section 22 (cancellation upon surrender)
The Court observed that the first paragraph of Section 22 contemplates a situation where the surety or bondsman voluntarily surrenders the accused to the same court that ordered the accused’s release. In this case, the court found that petitioner did not voluntarily surrender the accused; the accused was arrested and detained because of a separate, subsequent criminal charge. The mere fact of the accused’s arrest and detention for another case does not satisfy the statutory condition of surrender by the bondsman that would authorize cancellation under Section 22.
Court’s analysis as to the nature and treatment of cash bail under Section 14
The Court emphasized that cash bail is treated differently from other forms of bail. Under Section 14, a cash deposit made as bail is regarded, for purposes of the State’s rights, as the money of the accused and is in custodia legis. Consequently, such deposit may be applied to the payment of any fine and costs imposed in the underlying cases; any residual amount, if any, is to be returned to the accused or to the person who made the deposit. The Rule thus limits the availability of cancellation when the bail posted is in cash.
Precedent relied upon — Esler v. Ledesma (1928)
The Court relied on Esler v. Ledesma, where it was hel
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 135012)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, filed by petitioner Anita Esteban.
- Petition assails two Orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, San Jose City: the Order dated July 9, 1998 and the Order dated August 20, 1998, issued by Judge Reynaldo A. Alhambra.
- Trial court Orders denied petitioner’s application for cancellation of cash bail bonds posted in four criminal cases: Criminal Cases Nos. SJC-88(95), SJC-27(97), SJC-30(97) and SJC-31(97).
- Petition contends the Orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and raises an issue asserted to be one of first impression.
Relevant Parties and Roles
- Petitioner: Anita Esteban — sister-in-law of the accused and the depositor of the cash bail in the four criminal cases.
- Accused in the criminal cases: Gerardo Esteban.
- Respondent judge: Hon. Reynaldo A. Alhambra, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, San Jose City.
- Other respondent named: Gerardo Esteban (the accused whose bail was posted).
Facts
- Anita Esteban posted cash bail of P20,000.00 in each of the four criminal cases to secure the temporary liberty of accused Gerardo Esteban.
- While Gerardo was on provisional liberty during the pendency of those four criminal cases, he was subsequently charged with another crime, was arrested and detained.
- Petitioner, refusing to post another bail for the subsequent charge, filed an application for cancellation of the cash bonds she had posted in the four pending criminal cases on June 18, 1998.
- In her application, petitioner alleged that she was “terminating the cash bail by surrendering the accused who is now in jail as certified to by the City Jail Warden.”
Trial Court Orders and Reasoning
- Order dated July 9, 1998: The trial court denied the application for cancellation of bail bonds.
- The court found that the accused was allowed provisional liberty after money was deposited as cash bail and that petitioner did not voluntarily surrender the accused to the court.
- The accused’s subsequent arrest and detention for another criminal case did not affect the character of the cash bail posted in the four specified cases.
- The trial court relied on authority (State vs. Wilson, 65 Ohio L-Abs, 422, 115 NE 2d 193) to hold that money deposited as bail, even when made by a third person, is considered the accused’s deposit where there is no principal-surety relationship; such money takes the nature of property in custodia legis and is to be applied for payment of fines and costs.
- The trial court concluded the money so deposited is to be applied for fines and costs regardless of the fact that it was deposited by a third person, and therefore denied the application for cancellation.
- Motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied in the Order dated August 20, 1998.
Issue Presented
- Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s application for cancellation of cash bail bonds where the accused was arrested and detained for a subsequent crime and petitioner asserted she had “surrendered” the accused.
Petitioner’s Legal Argument
- Petitioner invoked Section 19 (now Section 22) of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (as amended), arguing that by surrendering the accused who is now in jail, her application for cancellation of bail in the four criminal cases should be allowed.
- She relied on the provision 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,” and that “The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case, or execution of the judgment of conviction,” with cancellation “without prejudice to any liability on the bail.” (Underscoring supplied in source.)
Trial Court / Respondent’s Counter-Reasoning (as adopted by trial court)
- The first paragraph of Section 22 contemplates situations where the surety or bondsman surrenders the accused