Trial in Absentia in the Philippines: A Detailed Analysis

1. Constitutional Basis The right to trial in absentia is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically under Article III, Section 14 (2) of the Bill of Rights, which states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable."

This provision balances the accused’s right to be present at his trial with the efficient administration of justice by allowing the court to proceed with the trial even if the accused is absent, under specific conditions.

2. Conditions for Trial in Absentia For a trial in absentia to proceed, three requisites must be met:

The accused has already been arraigned – The accused must have been formally informed of the charges against him, and he must have entered a plea in court.
The accused was duly notified of the trial – The court must ensure that the accused received proper notice regarding the schedule of the trial or hearing.
The absence of the accused must be unjustifiable – The court must determine that the accused’s failure to appear was without valid reason. If the absence is found to be deliberate and unjustified, the trial can proceed in absentia.

If these three conditions are not satisfied, trial in absentia cannot proceed. The court must adjourn or defer the proceedings until the presence of the accused is secured unless he waives his right to be present.

3. Purpose of Trial in Absentia The primary purpose of trial in absentia is to prevent the accused from deliberately delaying the trial process through unjustifiable absences. This ensures that the judicial process is not hampered by the accused’s lack of cooperation. By allowing trials to proceed despite the accused’s absence, it upholds the following:

Efficient administration of justice – Trials can continue, preventing unnecessary delays in the judicial process.
Public interest and expediency – It ensures that justice is served in a timely manner, safeguarding public confidence in the legal system.
Accused’s right to speedy trial – This procedural safeguard is also designed to prevent the accused from frustrating the right to a speedy trial through delaying tactics.

4. Rights of the Accused During Trial in Absentia Even in absentia, the accused retains fundamental constitutional rights, such as:

Right to counsel – The accused has the right to be represented by a lawyer, even in his absence. The court is obligated to appoint counsel de oficio if the accused cannot afford one or is unrepresented.
Right to cross-examine witnesses – Although the accused may not be physically present, his lawyer retains the right to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses and present evidence on his behalf.
Right to be informed of the proceedings – The accused must be properly notified of the progress of the trial, ensuring that his rights to due process are not violated.

5. Waiver of Rights by Absence When the accused, without valid justification, fails to appear after having been duly notified, it is generally construed as a waiver of his right to be present during the trial. However, such waiver does not extend to the other constitutional rights of the accused, particularly the right to counsel and the right to a fair trial.

The Supreme Court, in People v. Estebia (G.R. No. 204964, June 9, 2014), emphasized that an accused cannot be allowed to delay the disposition of a case by absconding or refusing to appear without justification.

6. Limitations and Exceptions While trial in absentia is constitutionally and statutorily recognized, there are limitations and exceptions to its application:

No conviction without hearing – While a trial may proceed in the absence of the accused, a conviction cannot be based solely on the absence. The prosecution must still present sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accused must be arraigned first – The trial cannot proceed if the accused has not been arraigned, as this would violate his right to be informed of the charges against him and his right to due process.
Presence for critical stages – There are certain stages in the trial process, particularly during sentencing or promulgation of judgment, where the presence of the accused is generally required. Failure to appear during promulgation, for example, may lead to the issuance of a warrant of arrest unless the accused justifies his absence.

In People v. Muñoz (G.R. No. L-38968, February 7, 1985), the Supreme Court ruled that the accused's failure to appear for the reading of the judgment can be grounds for delaying the promulgation of the decision and issuing a warrant for his arrest.

7. Trial in Absentia and Bail An accused on bail may be tried in absentia if he fails to appear at the trial without justifiable cause. However, unjustified absence from trial may also result in the forfeiture of bail and the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

In People v. Manalili (G.R. No. 107718, April 21, 1994), the Court reiterated that an accused on bail who absconds or fails to attend court proceedings without a valid reason will have his bail bond forfeited and can be tried in absentia.

8. Promulgation of Judgment in Absentia Under Rule 120, Section 6 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court may promulgate the judgment in absentia if the accused fails to appear despite due notice, provided that:

The judgment can still be appealed, provided the accused is not in hiding, or if he was duly notified and simply refuses to appear.
If the accused does not appeal within the prescribed period, the judgment becomes final and executory.

The promulgation of judgment in absentia is intended to prevent the accused from unduly delaying the final resolution of the case.

9. Jurisprudence on Trial in Absentia Philippine jurisprudence has further clarified the application of trial in absentia. Some notable cases include:

People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 124201, December 11, 1998): The Court ruled that an accused cannot escape trial simply by refusing to attend hearings. Once arraigned and notified, the trial proceeds in absentia unless there is a valid justification.
People v. Salas (G.R. No. 147228, October 28, 2002): The Court emphasized that an accused who deliberately absents himself from trial without justification cannot use his absence as a defense, and trial in absentia can proceed.
People v. Cabalequero (G.R. No. 142751, August 2, 2001): The accused absconded after arraignment. The Supreme Court held that his unjustifiable absence waived his right to be present, but his counsel’s right to defend him through cross-examination and presentation of evidence was preserved.

10. Conclusion Trial in absentia is a constitutional mechanism that balances the rights of the accused with the efficient administration of justice. It ensures that justice is not delayed by the accused’s unjustified absence while preserving his essential rights to due process, counsel, and fair trial. However, its application is strictly regulated, requiring that the accused be duly notified and that his absence be without valid reason before the trial can proceed in his absence.