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;