Arraignment stands as a cornerstone of criminal due process in the Philippines. It is the stage where the accused is formally informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and is required to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Under Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, arraignment ensures that the accused understands the charges and exercises fundamental rights, including the right to counsel and the opportunity to challenge the validity of the information.
The presence of the accused at arraignment is mandatory. Section 1(a), Rule 116 expressly provides that “the accused must be present at the arraignment and shall personally enter his plea.” This requirement cannot be delegated to counsel alone. Arraignment marks the point at which the case formally moves from the preliminary investigation phase into the trial proper. Without a valid arraignment, the court cannot lawfully proceed to trial, including the presentation of evidence or the conduct of trial in absentia.
Notice and Scheduling of Arraignment
Once an information is filed and probable cause is found, the court issues a warrant of arrest (for non-bailable offenses or when no bail is posted) or directs the accused to appear if bail has been granted. In bailable cases, the accused may post bail even before actual arrest, after which the court schedules arraignment and notifies the accused, usually through counsel of record or the bondsman.
Proper notice is a prerequisite before any adverse consequence may attach. Courts typically send notices to the address provided in the bail application or to the accused’s last known address. Failure to receive actual notice due to the accused’s own fault (such as providing a false address or evading service) does not excuse non-appearance.
Legal Consequences of Non-Appearance
When an accused who has been duly notified fails to attend arraignment without justifiable cause, several immediate and cascading consequences follow under the Rules of Court and established jurisprudence.
1. Issuance of Warrant of Arrest or Alias Warrant
If the accused has not yet been arrested or is out on bail, the court issues or re-issues a warrant for his arrest. This warrant authorizes law enforcement to take the accused into custody and bring him before the court for arraignment. In practice, courts often issue a “bench warrant” or “alias warrant” specifically for failure to appear. The accused may then be detained until arraignment is conducted, unless new bail is posted.
2. Forfeiture of Bail Bond
For accused persons released on bail, non-appearance triggers the forfeiture process under Rule 114, Section 21. The court issues an order declaring the bail bond forfeited. The bondsman or surety is notified and given thirty (30) days from receipt of the order to:
- Produce the body of the accused in court, or
- Explain to the satisfaction of the court why the accused did not appear.
If the bondsman fails to produce the accused or provide a satisfactory explanation within the 30-day period, the court renders judgment on the bond, making the forfeiture final and executory. The bondsman becomes liable for the full amount of the bond, which the court may then execute against the surety’s property or collateral. The original bail is cancelled, and the accused is considered a fugitive from justice.
This process protects the integrity of the bail system and deters accused persons from treating court orders lightly. The accused remains liable to the bondsman for reimbursement of any amount the surety pays to the court.
3. Citation for Contempt of Court
Willful and deliberate failure to appear despite notice may constitute indirect contempt under Rule 71. The court may issue an order requiring the accused to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. If found guilty, the accused faces imprisonment or a fine, in addition to the criminal case consequences. Contempt proceedings are separate but may run concurrently with the main case.
4. Suspension of Proceedings and Delay Attributable to the Accused
Without arraignment, the case cannot advance to pre-trial, trial, or any stage requiring a plea. All procedural timelines under the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8493) and the Revised Rules are effectively tolled or suspended insofar as the delay is caused by the accused’s non-appearance. The accused cannot later invoke the right to speedy trial to seek dismissal when the postponement stems from his own fault.
Trial in absentia under Rule 119, Section 14 is unavailable because it presupposes that the accused has already been arraigned, notified of subsequent proceedings, and unjustifiably absents himself thereafter. Failure at the arraignment stage blocks this mechanism entirely until the accused is produced and properly arraigned.
5. Impact on Bail and Future Release
Courts view repeated or unjustified non-appearance as strong evidence of flight risk. Upon eventual arrest, the court may:
- Deny bail outright in cases where bail is a matter of discretion,
- Increase the amount of bail significantly,
- Impose stricter conditions (such as house arrest, regular reporting, or travel restrictions), or
- Require a higher-quality surety.
Demonstrated evasion weighs heavily against the accused in subsequent bail hearings and may be cited as a circumstance indicating consciousness of guilt.
6. Additional Criminal and Civil Liabilities
While non-appearance at arraignment does not automatically constitute a separate criminal offense, it may support charges of obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree No. 1829 if the accused actively conceals himself or induces others to prevent his appearance. In extreme cases involving public officers or employees, administrative liability may also arise.
Civilly, the bondsman who pays the forfeited bond retains the right to recover the amount from the accused through a separate action for reimbursement, damages, and attorney’s fees.
7. Effect on Prescription and Other Rights
The prescriptive period for the offense continues to run according to Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code and special laws. Absence from the Philippines interrupts prescription in certain cases, but mere failure to attend arraignment within the country does not automatically toll the period unless the accused is shown to have fled the jurisdiction. However, the practical effect is that the case remains pending indefinitely until the accused is arraigned, exposing him to prolonged uncertainty, potential re-arrest at any time, and accumulating interest or costs on forfeited bonds.
The accused also forfeits the immediate opportunity to enter a plea of guilty (which might allow for plea bargaining under Rule 116, Section 1 and related issuances) or to file motions that are best raised after arraignment, such as certain challenges to the information.
Justifiable Causes and Remedies
Courts recognize valid excuses for non-appearance, including serious illness (supported by medical certificates), force majeure, or other circumstances beyond the accused’s control. In such cases, the court may reset the arraignment without imposing penalties, provided the explanation is substantiated and promptly communicated.
Once a warrant issues, the accused may file a motion to lift or recall the warrant, coupled with an explanation and, where appropriate, a new bail application. Courts generally grant relief when good faith is shown and the delay has not prejudiced the prosecution or offended party.
Practical and Strategic Considerations
Defense counsel play a critical role in preventing these consequences by ensuring timely notice to the client, coordinating transportation or virtual attendance (where permitted by court issuances), and immediately informing the court of any impediments. Accused persons, particularly those on bail, must treat arraignment dates with the highest priority.
Prosecutors and private complainants benefit from prompt issuance of warrants and forfeiture proceedings, which pressure the accused to surface and move the case forward. Judges exercise sound discretion in balancing the rights of the accused with the interest of the State in the speedy administration of justice.
In sum, failure to attend arraignment carries serious, multifaceted consequences designed to compel compliance and preserve the orderly flow of criminal proceedings. The Philippine legal system treats the accused’s presence at this stage as indispensable, and the Rules impose direct and collateral sanctions to deter evasion while upholding due process. Compliance remains the surest path to protecting one’s rights and avoiding the escalating legal and financial repercussions that flow from unjustified absence.