Esler v. Ledesma
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mariano Gotera, chauffeur of Mrs. Rosario Esler, Vda. de Tad-Y, was charged with serious physical injuries. He was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment, to indemnify the offended party (Father Nicolas Valencia) in the sum of P2,996, and to pay costs. Procedural History: To secure Gotera's release, Luis Davao and Eulogio Aguirre, accompanied by Gotera's counsel, presented two Liberty bonds valued at $500 each as bail. A receipt was issued by the Clerk of Court, Mateo Villavert, acknowledging the deposit of the bonds. At the foot of the receipt, Gotera declared that the bonds were the exclusive property of Mrs. Rosario Esler, Vda. de Tad-Y. The Petition: After Gotera's conviction, a petition was granted to apply the Liberty bonds to the payment of the indemnity. The provincial sheriff converted the bonds to cash. After deducting legal fees, the court directed the balance to be handed to Father Valencia. Mrs. Tad-Y unsuccessfully sought to set aside the order, leading to an independent action against the sheriff, clerk of court, and Father Valencia, which was dismissed by the trial court. This appeal followed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Liberty bonds deposited as bail could be applied to the payment of the indemnity awarded to the offended party. Whether the term "fine" in Section 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes indemnity for damages.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is reversed. A new judgment shall issue in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nicolas Valencia for the sum of P1,923.30, without costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Liberty bonds deposited as bail could be applied to the payment of the indemnity awarded to the offended party: The Court held that while Liberty bonds deposited as cash bail by a third person are treated as the property of the accused as between the state and the accused, for the purpose of satisfying fines and costs, the residue of the cash bail is not subject to the claim of a creditor of the accused, and ordinary rules of property obtain as between the accused and a third person. In this case, the Court found that the Liberty bonds were indeed the property of Mrs. Rosario Esler, Vda. de Tad-Y, a third person. Therefore, the application of these bonds to the indemnity, which is primarily of interest to the offended party and the accused, was questioned. On whether the term "fine" in Section 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes indemnity for damages: The Court ruled that the term "fine" in Section 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not include indemnity for damages. The Code of Criminal Procedure is a penal statute and should be strictly construed. It is of American origin, and in the United States, cash bail has not been applied to anything other than the payment of fine and costs, as criminal and civil actions are tried separately. Damages are not assessed in criminal actions in the United States, unlike in the Philippines where the Spanish Penal Code is in force. The Code of Criminal Procedure recognizes the distinction between civil rights and criminal actions in Section 107. The Penal Code also clearly distinguishes between imprisonment, fine, and indemnity. The civil liability for reparation of damages and indemnification for harm done is purely statutory. The Court reasoned that when cash bail is allowed, the transaction is between the state and the defendant. The money may be used for what the state is concerned with – the fine and costs. The government has a lien on the deposited money for these purposes. However, indemnity, while permitted to be fixed in a criminal action, is primarily of interest to the offended party and the accused. The Court concluded that it would not be justified in amending the law by judicial pronouncement to include indemnity within the meaning of "fine."
Main Doctrine
Liberty bonds deposited as cash bail by a third person, even if the third person is the owner, can be applied to the payment of the fine and costs imposed upon the accused, but not to the indemnity for damages, as the term 'fine' in Section 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not include indemnity.