Marcos vs Ruiz
2
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 Marcos appeared during the scheduled arraignment but asked for resetting because his lawyer has just withdrawn from the case.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 2 nd information was the same as the 1 st 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 petitioner’s 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
-
Upload
maria-quijada -
Category
Documents
-
view
259 -
download
6
description
Marcos vs Ruiz
Transcript of Marcos vs Ruiz
MARCOS vs RUIZ213 SCRA 177FACTS: After conducting a preliminary investigation, Asst, Fiscal of Tagbilaran City led to RTC!o"ol 2 information against #arcos for violation of !$ 22% #arcos appeared during t"e sc"eduled arraignment but as&ed for resetting because"is la'yer "as (ust 'it"dra'n from t"e case% T"e court granted "is re)uest% *ater, #arcos 'as able to settle "is obligation 'it" t"e complainants and t"e lattere+ecuted an A,davit of -esistance% !ecause of t"at, Asst% City Fiscal led a #otion to-ismiss t"e case because 'it"out t"e testimony of t"e complainants '"o 'it"dre',"e cannot successfully prosecute t"e case% -uringt"earraignment, #arcospleadednotguilty% ."ent"ecase'ascalledfor"earing, #arcos and"is la'yer already left% T"e prosecutionproceededint"epresentation of its evidence and rested its case% !ecause #arcos did not attend t"e trial, t"e court forfeited "is bailbond% Counsele+plainedt"at "e 'as unabletoattendt"etrialbecause "e "ad attended urgentmatter '"ic" needed"ispersonalattention%/e also e+plained t"at #arcosleft inbelief t"at t"ere 'ould no presentation of evidence since an A,davit of -esistance'as already led before t"e court% 0ssentially, t"e 2nd information 'as t"e same as t"e 1st so t"e counsel of t"e accusedo1eredt"at readingof informationis 'aivedandpleaof not guiltybedirectlyentered%ISSUE:.23 t"e court erred in in forfeiting t"e petitioner4s bail bond for "is non5appearance duringtrial% Stated ot"er'ise, '"at are t"e instances '"ere t"e presence of t"e accused duringtrial is indispensable6 #ay a counsel enter a plea in be"alf of t"e accused6RULING: T"e forfeiture of t"e bail bond 'as inappropriate% A bail bond may be forfeited only ininstances '"ere t"e presence of t"e accused is specically re)uired by t"e court oft"e RoC and, despite due notice to t"e bondsmen to produce "im before t"e court ona given date, t"e accused fails to appear in person as so re)uired% 7nder t"e RoC, t"e accused "as to be present81 at t"e arraignment pursuant to par% 9b:, Section 1, Rule 11;
