1) Why the Accused’s Presence Matters—and What “Presence” Means

Philippine criminal procedure treats the accused’s presence as a core safeguard because a criminal case is not merely a dispute between parties; it is a proceeding where the State seeks to deprive a person of liberty (and, in some cases, property). “Presence” refers to the accused being physically before the court, typically in open court, and able to see, hear, and participate meaningfully through counsel. In modern practice, “presence” may also be satisfied through authorized remote appearance when allowed by court rules, orders, or administrative issuances—subject always to due process concerns and the court’s control.

But presence is not required at every procedural moment. Philippine practice draws an important line between:

Critical stages where the accused must be present to protect rights directly; and
Proceedings primarily handled through counsel (often pre-trial and incident motions) where the accused’s personal appearance may be dispensed with, unless the court orders otherwise or the nature of the proceeding makes presence indispensable.

This article focuses on hearings on motions and requests for evidence (discovery-like mechanisms, production/subpoena requests, motions to suppress/exclude, and related incidents): when the accused must appear, when counsel’s appearance is enough, and what happens if the accused is absent.

2) The Governing Principles in Philippine Criminal Procedure

A. Constitutional anchors

Several constitutional guarantees shape the “presence” question:

Right to due process: proceedings must be fair; the accused must have a genuine chance to contest matters affecting liberty.
Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation: relevant to arraignment and proceedings that change the charge or theory.
Right to counsel: because counsel is the default agent for litigation choices and arguments.
Right to confront witnesses: the strongest “presence” driver in evidentiary hearings involving testimonial presentation.
Right against self-incrimination: presence can matter when the court attempts to elicit admissions or compel acts.

B. Procedural anchors (Rules of Criminal Procedure)

In Philippine practice, the Rules generally:

Require personal presence for specific stages (especially arraignment, trial, and promulgation—with recognized exceptions).
Allow many incident motions to be resolved based on pleadings, affidavits, and counsel’s arguments, sometimes without hearing, and sometimes with hearing but without requiring the accused personally—unless the court deems presence necessary.

C. The “critical stage” test (functional approach)

A useful way to analyze any motion or evidence request hearing is:

Is the proceeding a “critical stage” where the accused’s personal input or protection of rights cannot be adequately ensured through counsel alone?

If yes, presence is typically required (or strongly preferred, and the court should ensure waiver is informed). If no, counsel’s appearance generally suffices.

3) Baseline Rule for Motions: Counsel Usually Suffices

A. Incident motions are ordinarily litigated by counsel

Most motions in criminal cases—especially those about scheduling, pleadings, subpoenas, discovery/prosecution disclosures, trial management, postponements, or admission/marking of documentary evidence—are legal/strategic matters appropriately handled by counsel.

As a default:

The accused need not be present in routine hearings on incident motions unless:
1. A rule expressly requires presence,
2. The court specifically orders the accused to appear,
3. Evidence will be taken in a manner implicating confrontation or personal rights, or
4. The motion’s resolution requires the accused’s personal act, decision, or allocution (e.g., waiver that must be personal).

B. Why courts allow counsel-only appearance

This is a practical and rights-based balance:

Prevents undue delay caused by transporting detained accused or requiring attendance for purely legal argument.
Respects counsel’s role as the accused’s representative in litigation decisions.
Avoids turning every minor incident into a constitutional event.

That said, courts retain discretion to require presence if the matter affects bail, custody status, or other liberty-related outcomes.

4) Motions Where Presence Is Typically Not Required

These are usually resolved on papers, affidavits, and counsel argument:

A. Motions for extension, postponement, resetting, and similar scheduling motions

Personal presence is generally unnecessary.

B. Motions for leave (to file pleadings, submit additional evidence, file demurrer with leave where applicable)

Handled by counsel; presence typically unnecessary.

C. Motions for bill of particulars (or analogous requests for specification)

These involve legal sufficiency/clarity of the charge and are argued by counsel. Accused’s presence typically not required.

D. Motions for issuance of subpoena (ad testificandum/duces tecum)

Generally counsel-driven. The accused’s presence is not usually required unless the court needs clarifications only the accused can provide (rare).

E. Motions to admit documentary/offer evidence (during pre-trial/trial management incidents)

Usually counsel-driven. If the hearing does not involve testimony requiring confrontation, accused’s presence is generally not necessary.

F. Motions related to prosecution disclosure, inspection, copying (when allowed), and related evidence requests

Most are procedural/administrative. Counsel may appear and litigate.

5) Motions and Hearings Where Presence Is Typically Required (or Strongly Expected)

A. Arraignment (non-negotiable baseline)

Arraignment requires the accused’s presence because the plea is personal, the court must ensure understanding, and consequences are direct.

B. Trial dates where evidence is received against the accused (core confrontation context)

If witnesses testify, the accused’s presence is ordinarily required because:

The right to confront witnesses is engaged.
Counsel cannot fully substitute for the accused’s ability to observe and assist (though the legal conduct is by counsel).

Exception patterns: There are limited, rule-based exceptions (e.g., certain proceedings in absentia after arraignment when the accused is duly notified and fails to appear without justification, and the court allows trial in absentia under constitutional and rule conditions). But that is not the default and requires strict prerequisites.

C. Hearings on motions that involve taking testimony on contested factual matters affecting liberty or core rights

This includes many “evidence-based” motions, such as:

Motions to suppress/exclude evidence (e.g., illegal search and seizure issues) when the court conducts an evidentiary hearing.
Motions to determine voluntariness/admissibility of a confession or admission when testimony is taken.
Motions to identify or authenticate contested evidence via witness examination.
Motions that effectively become “mini-trials” on pivotal facts.

Presence matters here because the hearing becomes functionally part of the “trial” on evidence and may implicate confrontation and participation.

D. Bail proceedings (especially when bail is discretionary or evidence of guilt is strong)

Bail hearings can involve testimonial evidence and directly affect custody. The court may require the accused’s presence, especially if detained, though counsel often leads. Where testimony is presented and credibility is assessed, presence is generally expected unless validly waived and the court is satisfied with due process.

E. Promulgation of judgment (general rule: presence required; exceptions exist)

Promulgation has its own rule structure. Absence can trigger serious consequences (e.g., loss of remedies, issuance of warrant), subject to recognized exceptions and procedures.

6) Evidence Requests and “Discovery-Like” Mechanisms: Presence Usually Not Required

Philippine criminal procedure does not mirror civil discovery in full, but there are mechanisms that look like evidence requests:

Subpoena duces tecum for documents/objects
Motions for production/inspection where allowed or ordered
Requests for prosecution to produce or make available certain evidence (often anchored on due process and fair trial considerations)
Motions to preserve evidence, for chain-of-custody issues, for independent examination (in certain contexts), etc.

General rule:

Because these are typically litigated as procedural and legal matters, counsel’s presence is usually enough.

When presence becomes important:

If the hearing shifts from “request/production” to:

An evidentiary hearing with witness examination (e.g., custodian testimony, chain-of-custody testimony, admissibility inquiries), or
A stage requiring the accused’s personal waiver, consent, or stipulation on rights, then personal presence becomes more significant.

7) Special Focus: Motions to Suppress/Exclude Evidence (Search, Seizure, Confessions)

These are the most common “evidence request” and “evidence incident” hearings that raise presence questions.

A. If resolved purely on pleadings/affidavits

When the court resolves the motion based on submissions without live testimony, accused presence is generally not required. Counsel can argue legal points.

B. If the court conducts an evidentiary hearing with witnesses

Once witnesses testify (police officers, arresting officers, custodians, interrogators), the proceeding resembles trial on a contested factual issue:

Presence is typically expected to preserve confrontation and to assist counsel.
If the accused is absent, the court must be cautious: proceeding may risk due process challenges unless the absence is within permissible trial-in-absentia frameworks or validly waived with safeguards.

C. Confession/voluntariness issues

Because voluntariness can be intensely factual and may require assessing coercion, circumstances of custodial interrogation, and credibility, presence is generally important if testimony is taken.

8) Pre-Trial: Personal Appearance Rules Interact With Motions and Evidence Incidents

Pre-trial in criminal cases often includes:

Stipulations
Marking of evidence
Identification of witnesses
Simplification of issues
Setting hearing/trial dates
Discussions on plea bargaining (where permitted)

Presence at pre-trial

Courts frequently require the accused’s attendance at pre-trial because:

Stipulations can waive rights or lock in admissions.
Plea discussions, if any, require the accused’s informed choice.
The court may ask direct questions affecting strategy and rights.

However, not every motion heard during pre-trial requires personal presence. If a motion is heard during a pre-trial setting, the question becomes: is the court requiring the accused’s appearance for pre-trial generally, or specifically for the motion? In practice, many courts require attendance at pre-trial settings as a matter of course, which effectively answers the question for that calendar date.

9) Trial in Absentia: How It Affects Motion Hearings and Evidence Incidents

Philippine law recognizes trial in absentia under strict conditions (commonly described as: after arraignment, with due notice, and absence without justifiable cause). When properly triggered:

The court may proceed with trial and receive evidence even if the accused is absent.
Counsel’s role becomes even more critical.

Interaction with motions/evidence incidents

If trial in absentia is validly underway, the court can also hear incident motions and evidentiary matters without the accused present—because the accused’s absence is treated as a waiver of the right to be present, not a waiver of all rights (counsel still protects them). But courts must ensure:

The prerequisites for trial in absentia truly exist (arraignment, notice, unjustified absence).
Counsel is present and able to participate.

If those prerequisites are not met, proceeding without the accused at an evidentiary hearing risks reversible error.

10) Waiver of Presence: Can the Accused Waive Attendance at Motion Hearings?

A. Waiver is generally possible for non-critical proceedings

For routine motions, waiver is often implicit—counsel appears, the accused does not, and the court proceeds.

B. For critical stages, waiver must be clear and safeguarded

For stages that engage personal rights (arraignment, certain admissions/stipulations, testimony-heavy suppression hearings, promulgation), waiver must be:

Knowing and voluntary
Clearly shown on record
Acceptable under the applicable rule

Courts often insist on the accused’s appearance or a strong record basis that the accused understands what is being waived.

11) Practical Courtroom Realities: Detained Accused vs. Accused on Bail

A. Detained accused

For detainees, transporting to every motion hearing is burdensome and often unnecessary. Courts frequently allow:

Motions to be heard with counsel only
Remote appearance (if authorized and feasible)
Issuance of orders based on pleadings

But for hearings that take testimony affecting liberty (bail) or core evidence admissibility, courts more often require physical or authorized remote presence.

B. Accused on bail

Accused on bail generally have more flexibility, but if the court orders attendance, non-appearance can result in:

Issuance of warrants
Forfeiture proceedings on bail bond
Cancellation of bail
Proceeding under trial-in-absentia rules if conditions are met

12) Consequences of Non-Appearance at Motion Hearings

The effect depends on the nature of the hearing and what the court ordered.

A. If presence is not required and counsel appears

Usually none. The court proceeds.

B. If the court required the accused’s presence but the accused is absent

Possible consequences include:

Resetting with warning
Issuance of warrant (especially if absence is unjustified and the stage is significant)
Bond forfeiture/cancellation (for accused on bail)
Proceeding if trial in absentia standards are satisfied

C. If counsel is absent

That can be more serious procedurally:

Motions may be denied for non-appearance or deemed submitted
Proceedings may be reset; in some situations, the court may appoint counsel de oficio if necessary to protect rights

13) Prosecutorial Motions and Evidence Requests: Does the Accused Need to Be There?

Common prosecution incidents include:

Motions to issue subpoenas
Motions to mark evidence
Motions to correct/clarify matters
Motions for protective orders or to limit disclosure (in sensitive cases)
Motions for reinvestigation or to admit amended information (context-specific)

Accused presence is usually not required unless the incident:

Changes the charge or demands a new/renewed plea-related proceeding
Requires the accused’s personal response (e.g., plea, admissions)
Involves witness testimony that should be confronted (unless valid trial in absentia)

14) Defense Motions and Evidence Requests: When the Defense Wants Evidence, Must the Accused Attend?

Defense-side incidents like:

Requests for subpoena duces tecum (records, CCTV, phone logs, ledgers, hospital records)
Motions to compel production (within what’s allowed)
Motions to preserve evidence
Motions to require presentation of objects for inspection are usually litigated by counsel without needing the accused personally.

Accused attendance becomes more important only when:

The court wants the accused to confirm facts personally (uncommon; normally affidavits suffice)
The request hearing will include testimony and cross-examination
The defense is about to enter stipulations waiving objections or rights

15) A Working Checklist: Is Presence Required for This Hearing?

Use this practical checklist for any hearing on motions or evidence requests:

Step 1: What kind of hearing is it?

Purely legal argument / case management → presence usually not required.
Evidentiary hearing with witnesses → presence usually required, unless valid trial in absentia or valid waiver.

Step 2: Does the rule expressly require presence?

Arraignment / promulgation / plea-related → yes (subject to specific exceptions).
Otherwise, usually discretionary.

Step 3: Did the court order the accused to appear?

If yes, treat it as required unless modified.

Step 4: Does it affect liberty immediately?

Bail/custody matters → presence often expected.

Step 5: Does it involve personal waiver/admission/stipulation?

If yes → presence strongly expected.

Step 6: Is trial in absentia properly in play?

If yes → court may proceed with counsel even on evidence reception.
If no → proceeding without accused at testimonial stages is risky.

16) Best Practices in Philippine Litigation (Defense and Prosecution)

For defense counsel

If a hearing may take testimony (suppression, admissibility, bail), assume presence is required and ensure the accused can attend (physically or authorized remote).
If the accused cannot attend, put reasons on record and seek reset or alternative arrangements.
Avoid entering stipulations at pre-trial without the accused’s informed participation unless rules clearly allow counsel-only stipulations and the court accepts.

For prosecutors

If seeking to present testimonial evidence in an incident hearing, ensure the accused has notice and that counsel is present; be prepared to address presence/waiver issues.
If the accused is absent and the prosecution wants to proceed, ensure the legal basis (e.g., trial in absentia prerequisites) is clearly established on record.

For courts (procedural fairness)

Clarify in orders whether the accused’s presence is required for the next setting.
When proceeding without the accused in testimony-taking incidents, create a careful record showing why proceeding is permissible.

17) Synthesis: The Philippine Rule-of-Thumb

In hearings on motions and evidence requests, the accused’s presence is generally not required when the matter is legal/procedural and can be handled by counsel. Presence becomes required (or strongly expected) when the hearing is a critical stage—especially when testimony is taken, confrontation is implicated, liberty is directly at stake, or the accused must personally enter a plea, waive rights, or accept stipulations. Courts may also require presence by order, and non-appearance then carries procedural consequences.