Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1913 > December 1913 Decisions > G.R. No. 8214 December 27, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. THOMAS R. NICHOL

026 Phil 373:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 8214. December 27, 1913. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS R. NICHOL, Defendant.

Attorney-General Villamor, for Plaintiff.

City Attorney Nesmith, for the city of Manila.

SYLLABUS


1. MONEY DEPOSITED AS BAIL, AND CONFISCATED; INSULAR FUNDS. — Money deposited by an accused in a criminal cause pending in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila as bail and thereafter confiscated by the court by reason of the failure of the accused to appear for sentence, is funds of the Insular Government and not of the city of Manila.

2. ID.; ID.; MANILA NOT AN INSULAR BUREAU OR DEPARTMENT. — Under section 5 of the Appropriation Bill, No. 1873, the city of Manila is not bureau of the Insular Government, nor is a department or bureau of the city of Manila a department or bureau of the Insular Government.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


This is an appeal from a order of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila ordering the confiscation o f a deposit in lieu of a bond made by a person charged with the crime of resistance to the authorities and declaring the sum confiscated to be the property of the city of Manila.

One Thomas R. Nichol, having been charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of resisting officers of the law, deposited in court a sum of money as bail in lieu of a bond to secure his provisional liberty. Having been convicted he failed to present himself to serve the sentence imposed by the court and the deposit was confiscated in favor of the city of Manila. An exception was taken by the Insular Government to that portion of the order of confiscation declaring the money confiscated to be the property of the city of Manila and an appeal taken therefrom to this court.

The only contention made here is that the sum confiscated is the property of the Insular Government and not of the city of Manila. The city of Manila claims that it is entitled to the money under the provisions of Act No. 1873, section 5, as affirmed by Act No. 1955, section 2.

We do not believe that this contention is sound. The Act referred to is the appropriation bill for the current year. The purpose of the Act was not to change the substantive law or to regulate the ownership or destination of money paid into court by virtue of a judicial proceeding. These matters are regulated by special acts relative to the particular subject matter involved, or by general laws relating to the departments of the Insular Government, which were not repealed or modified by the provisions of the appropriation bill referred to. While the particular section cited deals with interbureau transactions and with the fees and collections made by particular bureaus, as well as with fees, fines, and costs of courts, it in no way affects or changes the destination of the receipts of such bureaus or of the collections made by courts in judicial proceedings, either by way of fees, fines, costs, or the confiscation of bail or otherwise. the section in question, aside from permitting the bureau chiefs to spend certain of the receipts of their bureaus in accordance with law, relates exclusively to the method of keeping accounts, of bookkeeping, determining the source and nature of receipts of bureaus, how they and those arising from judicial proceedings shall be credited and to which bureau or department, the purpose being, as stated therein, "to require the separation of revenue receipts which may properly be termed proceeds of taxation from those funds which accrue from interbureau transactions and specific services to private persons."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under that section the city of Manila can in no sense be called a bureau, nor can the judiciary be so called whether in the city of Manila or elsewhere; and the reference to the judiciary is to it as a department of the Government makes no appropriation of Insular funds for the city of Manila and the provisions contained in the Insular Appropriation Bill have no application to matters pertaining to the city. Nor do they affect its departments or bureaus. A department or bureau of the city is not a department or bureau of the Insular Government, and the general Insular Appropriation Bill, and particularly the section referred to, has nothing to do with such departments or bureaus. Act No. 1873 is an appropriation bill disposing of the funds of the Insular Government only and section 5 thereof deals with the bureaus and departments of the Insular Government exclusively and not with the city of Manila or any department or bureau thereof.

The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that every bail bond given in a criminal action within the original jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance to secure the liberty of persons charged with a crime shall be made payable in terms to the Government of the United States. A deposit of money in lieu of a bond must have the same destination. The representative of the Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands is the Insular Government, which becomes the payee in all bail bonds given in criminal cases originally cognized by the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. In the absence of a statute requiring that the money collected on bail bonds or sums deposited in lieu thereof and declared forfeited shall go to other sources, they remain the property of the Insular Government.

The judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the sum confiscated declared funds of the Insular Government; without special finding as to costs.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





December-1913 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 8238 December 2, 1913 - ANTONIO M. BARRETTO v. JOSE SANTA MARINA

    026 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 8561 December 4, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. E. M. KNIGHT

    026 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 8658 December 4, 1913 - MANUEL RUPERTO, ET AL. v. MANUEL KOSCA, ET AL.

    026 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8860 December 4, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. ERIBERTO M. PASCUAL

    026 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 8969 December 4, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO LABADAN

    026 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 6650 December 5, 1913 - SANTIAGO GALVEZ v. CANUTA GALVEZ

    026 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 7888 December 6, 1913 - DIONISIO CABUNIAG v. MARCOS MAGUNDAYAO

    026 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 8126 December 11, 1913 - TAN BEKO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    026 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 8973 December 11, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. LINO RAMOS CALUBAQUIB

    026 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 9014 December 11, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. CORNELIO FLORES

    026 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 8120 December 12, 1913 - FERMIN DE LA CRUZ v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    026 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 8991 December 12, 1913 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. ALBERTO BARRETTO, ET AL.

    026 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 9022 December 13, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES HERRERA

    026 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. 8105 December 17, 1913 - ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL. v. ANGEL ORTIZ

    026 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 9109 December 17, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. LEONILO GARCIA, ET AL.

    026 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 7999 December 19, 1913 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA v. GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

    026 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. 8946 December 20, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. AH TUNG, ET AL.

    026 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 7785 December 22, 1913 - FELIPE JUAN, ET AL. v. GO COTAY, ET AL.

    026 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 9041 December 22, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. LIN TIAO

    026 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 7856 December 26, 1913 - IN RE: MARIA CRISTINA G. CALDERON v. LUCAS EUGENIO, ET AL.

    026 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 7928 December 27, 1913 - PROV. OF TARLAC, ET AL. v. HERBERT D. GALE

    026 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 8214 December 27, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. THOMAS R. NICHOL

    026 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 8267 December 27, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. APOLINARIO CUNANAN

    026 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 8376 December 27, 1913 - MANUEL NOVO & CO. v. J. E. AINSWORTH

    026 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 8394 December 27, 1913 - JOSE VACA v. MANUEL KOSCA

    026 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 8574 December 27, 1913 - VICTORIANO SANTOS, ET AL. v. ELIAS ESTEJADA, ET AL.

    026 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 8638 December 27, 1913 - PEDRO DEL ROSARIO v. TOMAS CELOSIA, ET AT.

    026 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 7487 December 29, 1913 - CONSTANZA YAÑEZ DE BARNUEVO v. GABRIEL FUSTER

    029 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7895 December 29, 1913 - VICTORINO DEL CASTILLO v. PABLO ESCARELLA

    026 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 8021 December 29, 1913 - PROCESA PELAEZ v. FLAVIANO ABREU

    026 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 8029 December 29, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. CARROLL H. LAMB

    026 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 8169 December 29, 1913 - ANTONIO M.A BARRETO v. JOSE SANTA MARINA

    026 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 8654 December 29, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. TE TONG

    026 Phil 453

  • G.R. Nos. 8648 & 8649 December 29, 1913 - JOSE AGREGADO v. VICENTE MUÑOZ, ET AL.

    026 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 8650 December 29, 1913 - HENRY M. JONES, ET AL. v. H.E. SCHIFFBAUER

    026 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 8678 December 29, 1913 - MARCIANA MORENO DE WORRICK v. PAULINA GACO, ET AL.

    026 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 8896 December 29, 1913 - EDUARDO GUTIERREZ REPIDE v. GUTIERREZ HERMANOS

    026 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 9158 December 29, 1913 - RAMON HONTIVEROS v. JOSE ALTAVAS

    026 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 9096 December 29, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN Y. VAZQUEZ

    026 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 7821 December 31, 1913 - DOMINADOR GOMEZ v. REMEDIOS SALCEDO

    026 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 8190 December 31, 1913 - ISIDORA VENTURA v. AUREA CONSUELO FELIX, ET AL.

    026 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 8621 December 31, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DACIR, ET AL.

    026 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 8756 December 31, 1913 - ELEUTERIO CAMPOMANES v. GEORGE BERBARY, ET AL.

    026 Phil 517