The Legal Consequences of a Complainant’s Non‑Appearance after Being Summoned in the Philippines
Scope of this Article
The discussion covers every setting in Philippine practice where a “complainant” (or “offended party”) receives a summons or subpoena and then does not show up—from the barangay hall, to the prosecutor’s office, to the courtroom itself. Citations are drawn from the Constitution, statutes, the Rules of Court, the Local Government Code, the Katarungang Pambarangay Rules, and leading Supreme Court decisions. It is written for lawyers, law students, barangay officials, and litigants, but is not a substitute for independent legal advice.
1. Summons vs. Subpoena: Two Different Creatures
| Instrument | Issuer | Typical Addressee | Purpose | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summons | Punong Barangay/Lupon or Court (in civil cases, and in a few criminal matters under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure) | Parties | To compel personal appearance for mediation, conciliation or answer | Local Government Code (LGC) §§409–412; Rules of Court Rule 14 |
| Subpoena (ad testificandum / duces tecum) | Prosecutor, Judge, or Hearing Officer | Witnesses—including the private complainant | To compel testimony or production of evidence | Rules of Court Rule 21; Rule 112 §3 (preliminary investigation); Rule 119 §3 (trial) |
Because the ordinary criminal trial uses subpoenas (not “summons”) to secure a complaining witness, many consequences examined below flow from subpoena non‑compliance, not from a “summons” in the strict sense.
2. Barangay Justice (Katarungang Pambarangay)
2.1 Who must appear?
Under LGC §410(b) and Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules, the complainant and respondent themselves—not merely their lawyers—must personally appear before:
- The Punong Barangay for mediation; and
- The Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo for conciliation (if mediation fails).
2.2 Non‑appearance of the complainant
| Instance | Governing Rule | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| First non‑appearance | LGC §410(b)(3); KP Rule VI §8 | Barangay tribunal records the absence; may reset once. |
| Repeated or without just cause | Same | Dismissal of the complaint and issuance of a Certificate of Dismissal (formerly called “barred‑from‑suing” certificate). The complainant is barred from filing the same cause of action in court or any government office. |
| Justified cause (illness, force majeure, etc.) | KP Rules | Proceeding is reset; no penalty. |
Jurisprudence. Salcedo v. Hernandez, G.R. 95143 (August 2 1991) held that a civil action filed in court without the required barangay certification is dismissible motu proprio. Conversely, So v. Calongcoy, A.M. RTJ‑95‑1333 (1995) disciplined a judge who revived a civil action that the barangay had already dismissed after the complainant’s non‑appearance.
Practical tip. If the complainant can no longer attend, he should send a written explanation (ideally with medical or travel proof). The Lupon Secretary notes this in the minutes to avoid dismissal.
3. Prosecutor’s Office: Inquest & Preliminary Investigation
3.1 Inquest (warrantless arrest)
- The inquest prosecutor may require the complainant at a brief clarificatory hearing.
- Non‑appearance rarely aborts an inquest; the prosecutor decides on the basis of the salaysay (sworn statement) and seized evidence.
- Practical risk: weak cases may be downgraded or outright dismissed if the absent complainant’s narration is the only link establishing probable cause.
3.2 Regular Preliminary Investigation (Rule 112 §§3–4)
- Subpoena for Clarificatory Hearing. When the investigating prosecutor believes oral clarifications are needed, she may subpoena the complainant.
- Failure to Appear
- Waiver of Clarification. The prosecutor may deem the clarificatory examination waived and resolve on the papers.
- Dismissal for “lack of interest.” When the sworn complaint is internally inconsistent and the complainant ignores multiple subpoenas, the information may be refused filing. People v. Malabago, 273 SCRA [1997] illustrates dismissal after complainant’s persistent non‑appearance.
- No automatic contempt. The subpoena is administrative, not judicial; contempt powers are limited.
4. Direct Filing in Court under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (RRSP)
The RRSP covers B.P. Blg. 22 (bouncing checks), traffic offenses, and misdemeanors punishable by ≤ 6 months or a ₱1,000 fine (now ₱10,000 under A.M. 12‑11‑2‑SC).
- Section 5 of the RRSP treats private complaints like civil actions:
“If the complainant or counsel fails to appear at any stage of the proceedings, the complaint may be dismissed with prejudice.”
Dismissal “with prejudice” means the case cannot be re‑filed—a particularly harsh sanction. Courts apply substantial justice exceptions sparingly, e.g., Spouses Abella v. People, G.R. 196750 (January 25 2017) where a medical emergency was proven within a “reasonable” time.
5. Non‑Appearance in the Criminal Trial Proper
5.1 Status of the Complainant
The private offended party is ordinarily a witness for the prosecution; the public prosecutor controls the case in the People’s name.
5.2 Consequences of Missing a Subpoena
| Scenario | Rule/Case | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Complainant is essential witness (e.g., rape, estafa where only he can identify deceit) | Rule 119 §3 (trial court’s power to dismiss on prosecution’s manifest failure) | Court may dismiss or acquit for prosecution’s failure to prosecute if absence appears to be due to lack of interest. |
| Other prosecution evidence exists (CCTV, other witnesses) | People v. Sanchez, G.R. 141073 (2001) | Trial proceeds; court may issue a warrant of arrest or cite witness in indirect contempt (Rule 71 §3). |
| Recalcitrant witness | Rule 23 §6 (applied suppletorily) | Warrant of arrest until witness posts ₱100–₱1,000 bond and agrees to testify. |
5.3 Affidavit of Desistance ≠ Automatic Dismissal
If the absent complainant later submits an Affidavit of Desistance, the case is not automatically dismissed; the court examines (a) whether the crime is affectio societatis (e.g., slight physical injuries) that can be extinguished by pardon, or (b) whether public interest still demands prosecution (e.g., B.P. 22, child abuse under R.A. 7610).
6. Civil Action Aspect
When the civil action is impliedly instituted with the criminal case (Rule 111), the private complainant’s non‑appearance at pre‑trial can trigger dismissal of the civil action without prejudice (Rule 18 §5)—but not the criminal action.
7. Electronic & Remote Appearance
- OCA Circular 90‑2022 and the 2020 “Guidelines on Videoconferencing” recognize remote appearance as valid compliance with a subpoena or summons, subject to bandwidth and identity‑verification safeguards.
- A party fearing dismissal should promptly file a Motion to Appear Remotely explaining physical or logistical barriers.
8. Excusable and Inexcusable Causes
| Treated as Excusable | Treated as Inexcusable |
|---|---|
| Serious illness (supported by a medical certificate) | “Lack of fare money” without proof |
| Force majeure: typhoon signal #3+, road closure | Deliberate absence to buy time |
| Detention or prior court commitment | “Forgot the date” |
| Death in the immediate family (with death cert.) | Counsel’s advice “that presence is unnecessary” |
9. Checklist for Litigants and Counsel
- Read the fine print on the face of the summons/subpoena: date, time, venue, Zoom link.
- Calendar a reminder at least 24 hours beforehand.
- If conflict arises, file a motion for resetting or send a sworn explanation before the date.
- Barangay cases: know that non‑appearance twice may forever bar the claim.
- Prosecutor’s clarificatory hearings: absence can sink probable cause—prepare an affidavit to stand on.
- Trial: Missing a subpoena can lead to arrest or case dismissal—avoid being the prosecution’s Achilles heel.
10. Key Take‑Aways
- Barangay level—non‑appearance of the complainant is fatal; the case dies at its cradle.
- Prosecutor’s level—non‑appearance is risky but not always fatal; probable cause may still stand.
- Court trial—the State may push on, but if the complainant’s testimony is indispensable, persistent absence can acquit the accused.
- Remote appearance is now an accepted cure; use it.
- Always file written, well‑documented explanations; silence is taken as lack of interest.
Selected Authorities
- 1987 Constitution, Art. III §14; Art. XI §§12–17
- Rule 14, Rule 21, Rule 112, Rule 119, Rule 111, Rule 18, Revised Rules of Court
- Local Government Code of 1991, Book III, Chapter 7 (§§399–422)
- PD 1508 & Katarungang Pambarangay Rules (as amended)
- People v. Malabago, 273 SCRA [1997]
- Salcedo v. Hernandez, G.R. 95143 (2 Aug 1991)
- Spouses Abella v. People, G.R. 196750 (25 Jan 2017)
- People v. Sanchez, G.R. 141073 (5 Feb 2001)
- OCA Cir. 90‑2022; OCA Cir. 65‑2020 (Videoconferencing Guidelines)
Bottom line: A complainant’s presence is the lifeblood of many Philippine criminal and quasi‑criminal proceedings. Ignoring a summons or subpoena is seldom a mere inconvenience; it can forfeit the very right to prosecute and, in barangay or summary procedure cases, extinguish it forever.