In the Philippine criminal justice system, multi-accused cases—ranging from conspiracy, plunder, estafa syndicates, drug trafficking rings, and murder-for-hire plots—are commonplace. A recurring practical and legal question arises: when some of the accused remain fugitives, at large, or have evaded arrest, can the trial lawfully continue against those already in custody? The answer is unequivocally yes. Philippine law, rooted in the 1987 Constitution and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, expressly permits the trial to proceed without awaiting the apprehension of every co-accused. Delaying justice for those in custody would violate constitutional guarantees and undermine the public’s right to speedy disposition of cases.

Constitutional Foundations

The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides the bedrock. Article III, Section 16 guarantees that “all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.” This right belongs not only to the accused but also to the State and the offended party. Article III, Section 14(2) further allows trial in absentia after arraignment when the accused has been duly notified and his non-appearance is unjustified. While this provision directly applies to an already-arraigned accused who later jumps bail or absconds, it reflects the broader policy against indefinite postponement of proceedings.

Crucially, there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that every person named in an information must be under the court’s custody before trial may begin. The presumption of innocence attaches individually to each accused; the absence of one does not suspend the rights—or the obligations—of the others.

Statutory and Procedural Framework

The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (as amended) contain no provision mandating that all co-accused be arrested before arraignment or trial. Key rules include:

Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses) permits a single information to charge multiple accused when the offenses arise from the same series of acts or constitute a common scheme. The information remains valid even if not all accused have been served warrants.
Rule 112 (Preliminary Investigation) and Rule 113 (Arrest) authorize the issuance of warrants against all named accused. Once some are arrested, the court acquires jurisdiction over their persons and may proceed.
Rule 119 (Trial) governs the conduct of trial. Section 1 emphasizes that trials must be continuous and expeditious. Nowhere does the Rule require the physical presence of every co-accused as a precondition. Courts routinely conduct joint trials of those present while issuing alias warrants and placing the others in “at-large” status.

In practice, the trial court calendars the case for arraignment of the accused in custody. Those who appear plead, and trial immediately follows the pre-trial conference. The case against the fugitives is not dismissed; it remains pending, with the same information and docket number. Alias warrants continue to be issued, and the police and NBI are directed to exert diligent efforts to effect arrest.

Distinction Between Trial in Absentia and Proceeding Against Present Accused

It is important to clarify terminology. “Trial in absentia” under Section 14(2), Article III applies only after a valid arraignment and when the accused later absconds. In contrast, when co-accused have never been arrested and therefore never arraigned, their status is simply “at large.” The proceedings against the captured accused are not technically “in absentia” as to the fugitives; rather, the trial is conducted as to those over whom the court has acquired jurisdiction. The fugitives’ trial will commence only upon their arrest and arraignment, at which point they receive full due process.

Rationale and Policy Considerations

Several compelling reasons support this rule:

Speedy Trial Rights of Accused in Custody. An accused who is detained cannot be made to languish indefinitely merely because a co-accused remains at large. Philippine courts have repeatedly held that the right to speedy trial is personal and cannot be defeated by the State’s inability to arrest others.
Public Interest and Judicial Economy. Requiring all accused to be in custody would paralyze prosecution of large-scale crimes. Drug lords, corrupt officials, and syndicate members frequently arrange for some members to flee abroad or hide. Allowing partial trials prevents evidence from going stale and preserves witness recollection.
No Indispensable Party Doctrine in Criminal Cases. Unlike civil actions, criminal proceedings have no “indispensable parties.” Each accused is tried on the evidence applicable to him or her. Conspiracy is proven individually; the conviction of one does not automatically bind the others.

Practical Procedure in Court

When some co-accused are at large:

The public prosecutor presents the case against those arraigned.
Witnesses testify once; their testimony is recorded and forms part of the permanent record.
The court may later use such testimony against the fugitive upon his arrest, subject to the rules on former testimony (if the witness has died or cannot be found) or simply by conducting a full trial anew.
Separate judgments are rendered. The conviction or acquittal of those tried does not bar subsequent prosecution of the fugitives.
Bail remains available only to those who appear; fugitives cannot post bail until they surrender or are arrested.

If the present accused believe that the absence of a co-accused prejudices their defense (for example, if that co-accused is the only one who can corroborate an alibi), they may move for a separate trial under Rule 119, Section 15. Courts grant such motions sparingly and only upon a clear showing of prejudice.

Jurisprudential Support

Philippine Supreme Court decisions have consistently upheld the validity of partial trials. The Court has ruled that the failure or inability of the State to arrest all accused is not a ground for postponement, as this would render the constitutional right to speedy trial illusory. Courts have likewise rejected motions to suspend proceedings filed by detained accused on the sole ground that “co-accused are still at large.” Such motions are viewed as dilatory tactics.

In conspiracy and syndicated crimes, the Court has emphasized that the guilt of each accused is determined separately. An acquittal of those tried does not automatically exonerate the fugitives; conversely, a conviction does not preclude the fugitives from presenting fresh evidence upon their eventual arrest.

Special Situations

Fugitives Abroad: The trial proceeds domestically. Extradition proceedings run parallel but do not halt the local trial.
All But One at Large: The lone accused in custody is still entitled to trial without delay.
Corporate or Juridical Accused: When a corporation is charged alongside natural persons who flee, the trial against the corporation (through its officers present) continues.
Death or Incapacity of a Fugitive: If a fugitive dies before arrest, the case against him is dismissed; the trial of the others remains unaffected.
Provisional Dismissal: Under certain conditions (Rule 119, Section 8), the case against the fugitives may be provisionally dismissed after two years if no witness can testify, but the case against those tried proceeds to final judgment.

Effect on Evidence and Future Proceedings

When the fugitive is finally arrested years later, he receives a new arraignment and trial. The previous testimony of witnesses may be offered against him if the witnesses are unavailable (under the exceptions to the hearsay rule), but the accused retains the right to cross-examine any available witness anew. The earlier judgment against co-accused has no res judicata effect on him; he is tried on the merits as if the earlier trial had not occurred, except for the benefit of the recorded evidence where admissible.

Conclusion

The Philippine criminal justice system is designed for efficiency without sacrificing due process. A criminal trial can—and must—proceed against those co-accused who are in custody even if others remain at large. This rule upholds the constitutional rights to speedy trial and due process, prevents accused persons from using the flight of their co-conspirators as a shield, and ensures that justice is neither delayed nor denied. The case against the fugitives simply stays in abeyance, with warrants outstanding, until they are brought to court. Far from being an anomaly, this is standard, time-honored practice in every Regional Trial Court handling multi-accused indictments across the country.