Remission of confiscated bond in People vs. Uy Tuising

Ask AI

Commonwealth Act No. 225: Remission of confiscated bond in People vs. Uy Tuising

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the law?
Your conversations and searches stay on your device. We do not store or track your activity on our servers. To know more about our privacy commitment see jur.ph/privacy Ask AI provides quick answers grounded in full case texts to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

Ask AI

Title Supreme Court: Remission of confiscated bond in People vs. Uy Tuising

Law: Commonwealth Act No. 225

Decision Date: Nov 30, 1936

A law enacted in 1936 remits a bond confiscated by the Court of First Instance of Cebu due to the defendant's failure to appear in court, after it was discovered that the defendant had passed away and the confiscation was based on a technicality.

bond remittance

confiscated bond

A

Circumstances Surrounding the Confiscation

The defendant, Eugenio Uy Tuising, could not be produced in court despite efforts by the Luzon Surety Company.
The defendant died on January 27, 1932, a fact only known to the surety company after the court issued its confiscation order.
The confiscation was based solely on the defendant's technical non-appearance, not on substantive wrongdoing.

Grounds for Remission

The confiscation was deemed technical because the defendant's non-appearance was due to death.
Justice and equitable circumstances warranted remission of the confiscated bond back to the surety company.

Legislative Action and Appropriation

Section 1 mandates the remission of the full bond amount (4,867.99 pesos) to the Luzon Surety Company.
An appropriation of 4,867.99 pesos is authorized from the Philippine Treasury for this purpose.

Effectivity of the Act

Section 2 provides that the Act takes effect immediately upon approval.
The Act was enacted without executive approval on November 30, 1936.

END