Esteban v.
Alhambra (2004)
Petition: Certiorari
Petitioner: Anita Esteban
Respondent: Hon. Reynaldo Alhambra, Presiding Judge RTC Br. 39,San
Jose City
Ponencia: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
DOCTRINE:
“The law contemplates that the deposit shall be made by the defendant. The
money, x x x, must accordingly be treated as the property of the accused. As a
result, the money could be applied in payment of any fine imposed and of the
costs.
PROVISION:
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.
FACTS:
1. Gerardo Esteban is the accused in 4 criminal cases
a. His sister-in-law Anita posted cash bail of P20,000 in each
case for his temporary liberty.
b. While out on bail during the pendency, Gerardo was again
charged with another crime for which he was arrested and
detained.
2. Fed up, petitioner refused to post another bail.
a. She filed with the trial court an application for the
cancellation of the cash bonds posted for the 4 cases,
alleging that she is terminating the cash bail by surrendering
accused, now in jail.
3. Respondent Judge denied petition arguing that
a. She did not voluntarily surrender the accused but instead he
was subsequently charged with another crime.
b. Arrest does not affect the character of the cash bail posted for
the 4 cases
c. Bail, even though made by a third person is considered as the
accused’s deposit where there is no relationship of principal
and surety
d. Money so deposited takes the nature of property in custodia
legis and is to be applied for payment of fine and costs. And
such application will be made regardless of the fact that the
money was deposited by a third person.
4. Petitioner filed MR – DENIED
5. Hence this petition
Petitioner’s argument: Her application for cancellation of bail is allowed
under Section 22, Rule 114
ISSUE: W/N the Judge validly denied the application for cancellation of
bail. – YES.
RULING + RATIO:
1. First paragraph of Section 22 contemplates a situation where surety
or bondsman surrenders accused to court. After, upon application by
surety or bondsman, the court cancels bail bond.
2. In this case, the cash bail cannot be cancelled.
a. Petitioner did not surrender accused to the trial court but he
was arrested and detained for a subsequent criminal offense.
b. Bail bond was also in the form of cash depoisit and as
mandated by Section 14, it shall be applied to the payment of
costs and excess shall be returned to person making deposit.
c. There is a different treatment to cash bail compared to other
bail bonds.
i. May be deposited by accused or any person
ii. But as far as state is concerned, money deposited is
money of accused and can be applied in payment of
fine and costs. When cash bail is allowed, there are 2
parties: State and defendant(Esler v. Ledesma)
iii. But while as between the State and the accused the
money deposited by a third person for the release of
the accused is regarded as the money of the
accused, it is not so regarded for any other purpose.
As between the accused and a third person, the
residue of the cash bail is not subject to the claim of a
creditor of property obtain
3. No grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge
DISPOSITION: Petition DISMESSED.