Title
Remission of forfeited bond in criminal case
Law
Act No. 3683
Decision Date
Nov 3, 1930
The Philippine Jurisprudence case discusses the remittance of a forfeited bond provided by Simeon Lopez and Sabas de Guzman, as declared by the Court of First Instance of Manila, in accordance with the provisions of Philippine Law, Act No. 3683, which allows for the deduction of expenses incurred by the government in executing the bail bond.
A

Questions (Act No. 3683)

Act No. 3683 is an Act remitting the bond of five thousand pesos furnished by Simeon Lopez and Sabas de Guzman in favor of defendant Rufino Dizon, which had been declared forfeited by the Court of First Instance of Manila.

The parties involved are Simeon Lopez and Sabas de Guzman who furnished the bond, and defendant Rufino Dizon, alias Dy Quian, alias Juan Dizon.

The bond amount was five thousand pesos.

The Court of First Instance of Manila declared the bond forfeited.

The Act remits (cancels) the bond after deducting the expenses actually incurred by the government in executing the bail bond.

No, Act No. 3683 does not specify penalties but concerns remission of a forfeited bond.

Remittance here means the cancellation or forgiveness of the forfeited bond amount after deducting necessary expenses.

The Act took effect upon its approval on November 3, 1930.

The expenses actually incurred by the government in the execution of the bail bond are deducted before remission.

This Act highlights the power of the legislature to remit or cancel a forfeited bail bond in whole or in part, which can influence how forfeited bonds are treated in specific cases.


Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.