1 - Esteban v. Alhambra

CRIMPRO RULE 114, Sections 14 & 22
Title GR No. 135012

ESTEBAN V. ALHAMBRA Date: September 7, 2004
Ponente: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Anita Esteban, petitioner Hon. Reynaldo A. Alhambra, in his capacity as Presiding
Judge, RTC, Branch 39, San Jose City, and GERARDO
ESTEBAN, respondents
[1]
In this present petition for certiorari, Anita Esteban seeks to annul the Orders dated July 9, 1998 and August 20,
1998 issued by Judge Reynaldo A. Alhambra, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, San Jose City, in
Criminal Cases Nos. SJC-88(95), SJC-27(97), SJC-30(97) and SJC-31(97).The Orders denied petitioners application for
cancellation of the cash bail posted in each case.
FACTS
* - refer to notes
1. Gerardo Esteban is the accused in these criminal cases. His sister-in-law, ANITA ESTEBAN, petitioner herein,
posted cash bail of 20,000 Pesos in each case for his temporary liberty.
2. While Gerardo Esteban was out on bail and during the pendency of his four criminal caes, Gerardo was again
CHARGED WITH ANOTHER CRIME, for which he was arrested and detained.
3. Anita Esteban got so fed up with Gerardo’s actuation, she refused to post another bail. Instead, she filed with the
trial court an application for the cancellation of the cash bonds she posted in the four criminal cases. She
alleged that she is terminating the cash bail by surrendering the accused who is now in jail as certified to by the
City Jail Warden.
4. Respondent Judge Alhambra denied the application. To wit, in these cases, the accused was allowed enjoyment
of his provisional lbierty after money was deposited with the Clerk of Court as cash bail. Anita Esteban DID NOT
VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER the accused. The accused was subsequently charged with another crime for which he
was arrested and detained. The money deposited as bail even though made by a third person is considered as the
accused’s deposit where there is no principal or surety. Hence, the money so deposited takes the nature of the
property in custodia legis and is to be applied for payment or fine and costs.
5. Anita Esteban filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, the instant petitions assailing
the twin orders as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Contention:
1. She is constrained to bring this matter directly to the SC as the issue is one of first impression.
2. She submits that by surrendering the accused who is now in the four criminal cases is allwed under Section 22,
Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.*
ISSUE/S
I. Whether or not the Judge Alhambra committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when he refused to cancel the bail petition of Anita Esteban -- NO
RATIO
The Supreme Court ruled that the cash bail cannot be cancelled. The petitioner did not surrender the accused, charged in
four criminal cases, to the trial court. Gerardo Esteban was arrested and detained because he was hcarged in a
subsequent criminal case.
Sec. 22 of Rule 114 contemplates a situation where, among others, the surety or bondsman surrenders the accused to the
court that ordered the latter’s arrest. Thereafter, the court, upon application by the surety or bondsman, cancels the
bailbond.
Moreover, the bailbond was posted for the accused in the form of a cash deposit which, as mandated by Section 14 of
Rule 114*, shall be applied to the payment of fine and costs, and the excess if any shall be returend to the accused or to
any person who made the deposit.
This rule treats a cash bail differently from other bail bonds.
CASH BOND – may be posted either by the accused or by any person in his behalf. Insofar as the State is concerned, the
money deposited is regarded as the money of the accused. IT can be applied in payment of any fine and costs that may
be imposed by the Court. In Esler v. Ledesma, a cash bail is allowed and the two parties to the transaction are the State
and the defendant. Unlike other bail bonds, the money may then be used in the payment of that in which the State is
concerned the fine and costs. The right of the government is in the nature of A LIEN ON THE MONEY DEPOSITED. The
money should be treated as the property of the accused and may be applied in payment of any fine imposed and of the
costs.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the present petition is DISMISSED.
Notes
Sec. 22. Cancellation of bail. 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.
Section 14. Deposit of cash as bail. The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in
cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city or municipal treasurer the
amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the
case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and a written undertaking showing
compliance with the requirements of Section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be discharged from
custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of fine and
costs, while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit.
2-S 2016-17 (SALVACION)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/135012.htm

1 - Esteban v. Alhambra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 - Esteban v. Alhambra

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 - Esteban v. Alhambra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMPRO RULE 114, Sections 14 & 22

Title GR No. 135012

2-S 2016-17 (SALVACION)

You might also like