MARCOS vs RUIZ

213 SCRA 177

FACTS:

After conducting a preliminary investigation, Asst, Fiscal of Tagbilaran City filed to RTC
Bohol 2 information against Marcos for violation of BP 22.

Marcos appeared during the scheduled arraignment but asked for resetting because
his lawyer has just withdrawn from the case. The court granted his request.

Later, Marcos was able to settle his obligation with the complainants and the latter
executed an Affidavit of Desistance. Because of that, Asst. City Fiscal filed a Motion to
Dismiss the case because without the testimony of the complainants who withdrew,
he cannot successfully prosecute the case.

During the arraignment, Marcos pleaded not guilty. When the case was called for
hearing, Marcos and his lawyer already left. The prosecution proceeded in the
presentation of its evidence and rested its case.

Because Marcos did not attend the trial, the court forfeited his bail bond. Counsel
explained that he was unable to attend the trial because he had attended urgent
matter which needed his personal attention. He also explained that Marcos left in
belief that there would no presentation of evidence since an Affidavit of Desistance
was already filed before the court.

Essentially, the 2nd information was the same as the 1st so the counsel of the accused
offered that reading of information is waived and plea of not guilty be directly
entered.

ISSUE:
WON the court erred in in forfeiting the petitioners bail bond for his non-appearance during
trial. Stated otherwise, what are the instances where the presence of the accused during
trial is indispensable? May a counsel enter a plea in behalf of the accused?
RULING:

The forfeiture of the bail bond was inappropriate. A bail bond may be forfeited only in
instances where the presence of the accused is specifically required by the court of
the RoC and, despite due notice to the bondsmen to produce him before the court on
a given date, the accused fails to appear in person as so required.
Under the RoC, the accused has to be present:
1 at the arraignment pursuant to par. (b), Section 1, Rule 116;
2 at the promulgation of judgment, except when conviction is for a light
offense, in which case the judgment may be pronounced in the
presence of his counsel or representative pursuant to Section 6 of Rule
120, or unless promulgation in absentia is allowed under 3 rd par of said
Section; and
3 when the prosecution intends to present witnesses who will identify
the accused.
Thus, the petitioners appearance was not required at the subject trial. It is true that
he has the right to be present at every stage of the proceeding (from arraignment to
promulgation), but he can waive his presence. The failure of the accused to appear at

the trial despite due notice and without justification is deemed an express waiver of
his right to be present. As such, the trial may proceed in absentia.

With regard to the 2nd information, the court made no ruling on the manifestation and
offer by petitioners counsel that the reading of the information is waived and a plea
of not guilty is entered. The petitioner was neither made to confirm the manifestation
nor directed to personally make the plea. There was no valid arraignment as it is
required that the accused would personally enter his plea.