SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 437 30/10/2019, 10)46 PM

560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Esteban vs. Alhambra
*
G.R. No. 135012. September 7, 2004.

ANITA ESTEBAN, petitioner, vs. HON. REYNALDO A.

ALHAMBRA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 39, San Jose City, respondent.

Criminal Procedure; Bails; Cancellation; The first paragraph of

Section 22 contemplates of a situation where, among others, the
surety or bondsman surrenders the accused to the court that ordered
the latterÊs arrest; thereafter, the court, upon application by the
surety or bondsman, cancels the bail bond.·The first paragraph of
Section 22 contemplates of a situation where, among others, the
surety or bondsman surrenders the accused to the court that
ordered the latterÊs arrest. Thereafter, the court, upon application
by the surety or bondsman, cancels the bail bond. We hold that the
cash bail cannot be cancelled. Petitioner did not surrender the
accused, charged in the four criminal cases, to the trial court. The
accused was arrested and detained because he was charged in a
subsequent criminal case.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

561

VOL. 437, SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 561

Esteban vs. Alhambra

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e1b197ca1363d85ed003600fb002c009e/p/APX859/?username=Guest Page 1 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 437 30/10/2019, 10)46 PM

Same; Same; Bond; Cash Bond; It can be applied in payment of

any fine and costs that may be imposed by the court.·The Rule thus
treats a cash bail differently from other bail bonds. A cash bond
may be posted either by the accused or by any person in his behalf.
However, as far as the State is concerned, the money deposited is
regarded as the money of the accused. Consequently, it can be
applied in payment of any fine and costs that may be imposed by
the court. This was the ruling of this Court as early as 1928 in Esler
vs. Ledesma. Therein we declared that „when a cash bail is allowed,
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.‰

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Edwin D.S. Limos for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
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 petitionerÊs application
for cancellation of the cash bail posted in each case.
Gerardo Esteban is the accused in these criminal cases.
His sister-in-law, Anita Esteban, petitioner herein, posted
cash bail of P20,000.00 in each case for his temporary
liberty.
While out on bail and during the pendency of the four
criminal cases, Gerardo was again charged with another
crime for which he was arrested and detained.
„Fed up with GerardoÊs
2
actuation,‰ petitioner refused to
post another bail. Instead, on June 18, 1998, she filed with
the trial court an application for the cancellation of the
cash bonds she

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e1b197ca1363d85ed003600fb002c009e/p/APX859/?username=Guest Page 2 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 437 30/10/2019, 10)46 PM

1 Filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as

amended.
2 Petition, Rollo at p. 5.

562

562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Esteban vs. Alhambra
3
posted in the four criminal cases. She alleged therein that
she is „terminating the cash bail by surrendering the
accused who
4
is now in jail as certified to by the City Jail
Warden.‰ 5
In an Order dated July 9, 1998, respondent judge
denied petitionerÊs application, thus:

xxx
„In these cases, accused was allowed enjoyment of his provisional
liberty after money was deposited with the Clerk of Court as cash
bail. Applicant-movant (now petitioner) did not voluntarily
surrender the accused. Instead, the accused was subsequently
charged with another crime for which he was arrested and
detained. His arrest and detention for another criminal case does
not affect the character of the cash bail posted by applicant-movant
in Criminal Cases Nos. SJC-88(95), SLC-27(97), SJC-30(97) and
SJC-31(97) as deposited pending the trial of these cases. Money
deposited as bail even though made by a third person is considered
as the accusedÊs deposit where there is no relationship of principal
and surety (State vs. Wilson, 65 Ohio L-Abs, 422, 115 NE 2d 193).
Hence, the 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.
„WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the application for
cancellation of bail bonds is hereby DENIED.
„SO ORDERED.‰
6
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
7
but was
denied in an Order dated August 20, 1998.
Hence, the instant petition assailing the twin Orders as
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e1b197ca1363d85ed003600fb002c009e/p/APX859/?username=Guest Page 3 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 437 30/10/2019, 10)46 PM

Petitioner states that she is constrained to bring this

matter directly
8
to this Court as the issue is one of first
impression.
Petitioner submits that by surrendering the accused
who is now in jail, her application for cancellation of bail in
the four criminal

_______________

3Annex „C‰ of Petition, Rollo at pp. 16-21.

4Id., at p. 19.
5Annex „A‰ of Petition, Rollo at pp. 13-14.
6Annex „D‰ of Petition, Rollo at pp. 22-24.
7Id., at p. 15.
8Petition, Rollo at p. 3.

563

VOL. 437, SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 563

Esteban vs. Alhambra

cases is allowed under Section 19, now Section 22, Rule 114
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended,
which provides:

„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.‰ (Italics supplied)

PetitionerÊs submission is misplaced.

The first paragraph of Section 22 contemplates of a
situation where, among others, the surety or bondsman
surrenders the accused to the court that ordered the latterÊs
arrest. Thereafter, the court, upon application by the surety
or bondsman, cancels the bail bond.
We hold that the cash bail cannot be cancelled.
Petitioner did not surrender the accused, charged in the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e1b197ca1363d85ed003600fb002c009e/p/APX859/?username=Guest Page 4 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 437 30/10/2019, 10)46 PM

four criminal cases, to the trial court. The accused was

arrested and detained because he was charged in a
subsequent criminal case.
Moreover, the bail bond posted for the accused was in
the form of cash deposit which, as mandated by Section 14
(formerly Section 11) of the same Rule 114, shall be applied
to the payment of fine and costs, and the excess, if any,
shall be returned to the accused or to any person who made
the deposit. Section 14 provides:

„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.‰ (Italics supplied)

The Rule thus treats a cash bail differently from other bail
bonds. A cash bond may be posted either by the accused or
by any person in his behalf. However, as far as the State is
concerned, the

564

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Esteban vs. Alhambra

money deposited is regarded as the money of the accused.

Consequently, it can be applied in payment of any fine and
costs that may be imposed by the court. This was the ruling9
of this Court as early as 1928 in Esler vs. Ledesma.
Therein we declared that „when a cash bail is allowed, 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.‰ We further held

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e1b197ca1363d85ed003600fb002c009e/p/APX859/?username=Guest Page 5 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 437 30/10/2019, 10)46 PM

in the same case that:

„x x x. Similar cases have frequently gained the attention of the

courts in the United States in jurisdictions where statutes permit a
deposit of money to be made in lieu of bail in criminal cases. The
decisions are unanimous in holding that a fine imposed on the
accused may be satisfied from the cash deposit; and this is true
although the money has been furnished by a third person. This is so
because 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 (People vs. Laidlaw
[1886], Ct. of App. Of New York, 7 N. E., 910, a case frequently cited
approvingly in other jurisdictions; State of Iowa vs. Owens [1900],
112 Iowa, 403; Mundell vs. Wells, supra.). 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 (Wright & Taylor vs.
Dougherty [1908], 138 Iowa, 195; People vs. Gould [1902], 78 N.Y.
10
Sup., 279; Mundell vs. Wells, supra.).‰

In fine, we fail to discern any taint of grave abuse of

discretion on the part of respondent judge in denying
petitionerÊs application for cancellation of the accusedÊs
cash bail.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

Panganiban (Chairman) and Corona, JJ., concur.

Carpio-Morales, J., On Official Leave.

_______________

9 52 Phil. 114 (1928).

10Id., at p. 119.

565

VOL. 437, SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 565

Katon vs. Palanca, Jr.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e1b197ca1363d85ed003600fb002c009e/p/APX859/?username=Guest Page 6 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 437 30/10/2019, 10)46 PM

Petition dismissed.

Note.·Accused should not be punished for the absence

of his counsel by the cancellation of his bail and his
immediate detention. (Andres vs. Beltran, 363 SCRA 371
[2001])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e1b197ca1363d85ed003600fb002c009e/p/APX859/?username=Guest Page 7 of 7