United States vs. Nichol

A cash deposit in lieu of a bail bond, upon forfeiture, belongs to the Insular Government and not to the city of Manila in the absence of a statute expressly directing the forfeited sum to another source, since such deposit follows the destination of a bail bond payable to the Government of the United States.

The Insular Government and the city of Manila maintained distinct fiscal identities, with the Insular Appropriation Bill disposing only of Insular funds and addressing only bureaus and departments of the Insular Government. Section 5 of Act No. 1873, as affirmed by section 2 of Act No. 1955, governed interbureau transactions and the accounting, crediting, and separation of bureau receipts, fees, fines, and court costs. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, bail bonds in criminal actions within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance were made payable to the Government of the United States, represented in the Philippine Islands by the Insular Government.

Thomas R. Nichol was charged in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila with the crime of resisting officers of the law. To secure his provisional liberty, he deposited in court a sum of money as bail in lieu of a bond.

Thereafter Nichol was convicted of the charge. When he failed to present himself to serve the sentence imposed by the court, the deposit was confiscated. The order of confiscation declared the sum forfeited to be the property of the city of Manila.

Because of that declaration of ownership, the Insular Government took exception to that portion of the order and brought the matter to the Supreme Court for determination of whether the confiscated sum belonged to the Insular Government or to the city.

• Ownership of Confiscated Deposit: Petitioner, through the Insular Government, maintained that the sum confiscated was the property of the Insular Government and not of the city of Manila.
• Inapplicability of Appropriation Acts: Petitioner implicitly maintained that section 5 of Act No. 1873, as affirmed by Act No. 1955, did not transfer ownership or destination of money paid into court in a judicial proceeding to the city.

• Entitlement Under Appropriation Acts: The city of Manila claimed that it was entitled to the confiscated money under the provisions of Act No. 1873, section 5, as affirmed by Act No. 1955, section 2.

• Ownership of Forfeited Bail Deposit: Whether the sum deposited in lieu of bond and declared confiscated upon non-presentation to serve sentence is the property of the Insular Government and not of the city of Manila.
• Effect of Appropriation Acts: Whether section 5 of Act No. 1873, as affirmed by section 2 of Act No. 1955, vests ownership of forfeited bail deposits in the city of Manila.

• Ownership of Forfeited Bail Deposit: Yes. The confiscated sum was declared funds of the Insular Government, a cash deposit in lieu of bond following the destination of a bail bond payable to the Government of the United States.
• Effect of Appropriation Acts: No. Section 5 of Act No. 1873, as affirmed, did not change substantive law on ownership or destination of judicial receipts, being confined to appropriation and bookkeeping of Insular bureaus and departments.

• Ownership of Forfeited Bail Deposit: Every bail bond in a criminal action within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance was required to be made payable to the Government of the United States, whose representative in the Philippine Islands was the Insular Government as payee. A deposit of money in lieu of bond was given the same destination. Accordingly, absent a statute requiring forfeited bail proceeds to go elsewhere, such sums remained the property of the Insular Government.
• Effect of Appropriation Acts: The cited Act was the appropriation bill disposing only of Insular Government funds and dealing exclusively with its bureaus and departments. Aside from permitting bureau chiefs to spend certain receipts in accordance with law, the section related only to the method of keeping accounts, determining the source and nature of receipts, and requiring separation of taxation proceeds from interbureau and service funds. Neither the city of Manila nor the judiciary could be called a bureau, and a city department or bureau was not an Insular department or bureau, so the provisions had no application to the city or its departments.

• Appropriation Law Does Not Alter Substantive Ownership — An appropriation bill providing for expenditure of public funds and for accounting of receipts does not change substantive law regulating ownership or destination of money paid into court in judicial proceedings, which remains governed by special or general laws on the subject. Applied to reject the city's reliance on Act No. 1873 and Act No. 1955 as a source of title to forfeited bail.
• Destination of Bail Deposit Follows Bail Bond — A cash deposit in lieu of a bail bond takes the same legal destination as the bond itself; where the bond must be payable to the Government of the United States, the deposit is likewise payable to it through its representative, the Insular Government. Applied to vest the confiscated deposit in the Insular Government absent a contrary statute.
• Residual Ownership of Forfeited Bail — Money collected on bail bonds or sums deposited in lieu thereof and declared forfeited remains the property of the Insular Government in the absence of a statute directing it to other sources. Applied to reverse the declaration in favor of the city of Manila.

• "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." — States the controlling limitation on the appropriation acts invoked by the city and why they could not transfer title to the forfeited deposit.
• "The Code of Criminal Procedure requires that every bail bond given in a criminal action within the original jurisdiction of Court 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." — Defines the legal payee rule that determines ownership of bail and, by extension, cash deposits in lieu thereof.
• "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." — Articulates the residual-ownership rule that decided the controversy between the two governments.

• Section 5, Act No. 1873, as affirmed by Section 2, Act No. 1955 — Invoked by the city as basis for ownership of the confiscated sum; construed as an appropriation and bookkeeping provision on interbureau transactions and court fees, fines, and costs that did not affect destination of judicial receipts or apply to the city.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, provision on bail bonds — Required bail bonds in criminal actions within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to be payable to the Government of the United States; applied to hold that a cash deposit in lieu of bond had the same destination, vesting forfeited sums in the Insular Government as representative.

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