481 Phil. 162
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration[6] but was denied in an Order dated August 20, 1998.[7]x x x
“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 accused’s 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.”
“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.Petitioner’s submission is misplaced.
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.” (Underscoring supplied)
“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.” (Underscoring 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 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.[9] 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 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. Sup., 279; Mundell vs. Wells, supra.).”[10]In fine, we fail to discern any taint of grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge in denying petitioner’s application for cancellation of the accused’s cash bail.