Consequences of Missing Pre-Trial in Criminal Cases

Introduction

The pre-trial stage in Philippine criminal procedure is a critical mandatory phase designed to expedite resolution, narrow issues, and explore settlement possibilities without full trial. Governed primarily by Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as substantially amended and supplemented by the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, effective September 1, 2017), pre-trial is not a mere formality. Non-appearance at this stage carries serious, often irreversible consequences, particularly for the accused. Failure to attend can result in immediate arrest, cancellation of bail, loss of plea-bargaining opportunities, and in extreme cases, trial in absentia.

This article exhaustively discusses the legal framework, mandatory attendance requirements, specific consequences for each party, excusable absences, relevant Supreme Court rulings, and practical implications.

Legal Framework Governing Pre-Trial

1. Rule 118, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (as amended)

   • Pre-trial is mandatory in all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
   • It must be conducted within thirty (30) calendar days after arraignment (or shorter period for drug cases and other special laws).

2. Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (2017)

   • These guidelines superseded portions of Rule 118 and introduced stricter attendance rules and sanctions.
   • The pre-trial order explicitly requires the personal appearance of the accused, defense counsel de oficio or de parte, the public prosecutor, and (when applicable) the private complainant or complaining law enforcement agent.

3. Constitutional and Statutory Overlay

   • Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution allows trial in absentia only when the accused has been arraigned and subsequently fails to appear without justifiable cause.
   • Republic Act No. 8493 (Speedy Trial Act), RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act), and other special laws reinforce the mandatory and expeditious nature of pre-trial.

Mandatory Personal Appearance

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the accused must personally appear at pre-trial. Waiver of appearance is allowed only in extremely limited circumstances:

• When the accused executes a written waiver (rarely accepted for pre-trial).
• When the accused is hospitalized or bedridden and presents a medical certificate duly verified by the court.
• In plea-bargaining to a lesser offense where the accused has already submitted a valid offer in writing (but even then, courts almost always require personal appearance for the re-arraignment).

Defense counsel cannot validly waive the accused’s presence. The prosecutor and private complainant (if any) are likewise required to appear personally.

Consequences of Non-Appearance

A. Non-Appearance by the Public Prosecutor

• The court may impose sanctions (fine, censure, or contempt).
• Repeated absence may be reported to the Secretary of Justice for administrative action.
• If the prosecution manifests unreadiness without justification, the case may be dismissed on the ground of violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial (People v. Hon. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003, as applied in continuous trial context).
• The court may proceed with pre-trial and mark the prosecution’s documentary evidence even in the prosecutor’s absence, severely prejudicing the State’s case.

B. Non-Appearance by Defense Counsel

• First instance: warning or fine (P1,000–P30,000 depending on the court).
• Repeated absence: higher fines, possible contempt citation, or referral to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for disciplinary action.
• If counsel repeatedly fails to appear, the court may relieve him/her and appoint a counsel de oficio.
• The court will almost always issue an order compelling appearance at the next setting; continued defiance can lead to arrest of counsel for indirect contempt.

C. Non-Appearance by the Accused (The Most Severe Consequences)

1. Immediate Issuance of Warrant of Arrest
   Section 4(b), Part II of the Continuous Trial Guidelines explicitly states: “If the accused fails to appear despite due notice, the court shall issue a warrant for his/her arrest.”

2. Cancellation and Forfeiture of Bail

   • If the accused is on bail, the court will simultaneously order cancellation of the bail bond.
   • The bondsman is given ten (10) days to produce the body of the accused or show cause why the bond should not be forfeited.
   • Failure results in automatic forfeiture and confiscation of the bond (Rule 114, Section 21).
   • The accused becomes a fugitive, and any subsequent surrender or arrest will require new bail application under much stricter conditions.

3. Loss of Plea-Bargaining Opportunity

   • Plea bargaining to a lesser offense requires the personal consent of the accused in open court.
   • Absence is deemed withdrawal of any pending plea-bargaining proposal (DOJ Circular No. 027-2022 and subsequent guidelines).
   • The prosecution may withdraw its consent to plea bargaining once the accused fails to appear.

4. Possible Trial In Absentia

   • If the accused was arraigned, was initially present, and then absconds or fails to appear without justifiable cause, the court may proceed with trial in absentia (People v. Salas, G.R. No. 115192, March 7, 2000; Carredo v. People, G.R. No. 230591, June 26, 2019).
   • Evidence for the defense will be deemed waived unless previously submitted.
   • Promulgation of judgment may also proceed in absentia.

5. Archiving of the Case (in practice)

   • Many trial courts archive the case until the accused is re-arrested, which can take years or decades.
   • The accused lives as a fugitive, subject to arrest at any time, loss of employment opportunities, inability to travel, and constant fear of apprehension.

6. Aggravation in Sentencing (Indirect Effect)

   • Judges often consider flight or non-appearance as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse, which can influence the penalty imposed upon eventual conviction.

Justifiable Causes for Non-Appearance of the Accused

The Supreme Court accepts only the following as valid excuses (must be proven immediately, preferably in advance):

• Serious illness or hospitalization supported by a medical certificate issued by a government physician and verified by the court.
• Death of an immediate family member (with death certificate and affidavit).
• Fortuitous events or force majeure (typhoon, earthquake, etc.) that physically prevented appearance.
• Confinement in another detention facility (with certification from the warden).

Mere traffic, oversleeping, lack of transportation, or “forgot the schedule” are never accepted. Failure to notify the court in advance aggravates the situation.

Landmark Supreme Court Decisions

• Gimenez v. Nazareno (G.R. No. L-37933, April 15, 1988) – Established that unjustified absence after arraignment justifies trial in absentia.
• People v. Judge Espinosa (G.R. No. 137386, October 17, 2000) – Confirmed that bail is automatically cancelled upon unjustified non-appearance.
• Aquino v. People (G.R. No. 220434, June 5, 2019) – Reaffirmed strict enforcement of personal appearance at pre-trial under the 2017 Guidelines.
• Estino v. People (G.R. No. 250988, March 2, 2022) – Ruled that even one unjustified absence at pre-trial justifies warrant issuance and bail cancellation.
• Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty dated January 25, 2021 (A.M. No. 21-01-04-SC, March 2, 2021) – Supreme Court emphasized that plea bargaining requires personal appearance; absence forfeits the opportunity.

Practical Realities and Advice

In Metropolitan Manila and urban courts, judges almost automatically issue warrants the same day the accused fails to appear. In rural courts, there may be one courtesy postponement, but rarely more.

Accused persons who miss pre-trial for flimsy reasons almost always regret it: they lose freedom immediately, spend months or years in detention upon rearrest, and face significantly worse plea offers or none at all.

The only reliable way to avoid these consequences is to appear personally, on time, properly dressed, and ready to participate.

Conclusion

Missing pre-trial in a Philippine criminal case is one of the gravest mistakes an accused can make. The consequences are swift, severe, and often irreversible: arrest, loss of bail, forfeiture of plea-bargaining opportunities, possible trial in absentia, and transformation into a fugitive. The Supreme Court’s 2017 Continuous Trial Guidelines removed virtually all leniency on attendance. There is no meaningful substitute for personal appearance. In the stark language of many trial judges: “If you do not appear at pre-trial, you will be arrested that same day — no exceptions, no excuses.”