Effects of Trial In Absentia on

the Rights of the Accused

Trial In Absentia
Trial in absentia is a stage in a criminal proceeding where the trial is
being held even without the physical presence of the accused. Trial in
absentia is allowed in our jurisdiction and is indeed authorized by the
Constitution. Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution
provides:
“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.” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, before a trial in absentia may be had, the following requisites
must be present:
1. that there has been an arraignment;
2. that the accused has been notified; and
3. that his failure to appear is unjustified.
Impact on the Rights of the Accused
It was held in a long line of cases that an accused who failed to
participate in the course of his criminal proceedings for an
unjustifiable reason loses his constitutional rights i.e. to present
evidence on his own behalf, to confront and cross-examine the
witnesses. In addition, the right to confrontation, of cross-examination
and presentation of evidence may be waived expressly or impliedly by
conduct amounting to a renunciation of such right. (People v. Seneris,
No. L-48883, August 6, 1980)
Section 1(c), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides:

“(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage

of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the
judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is
specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification.The
absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which
he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present
thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed
to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates
until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be
allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the
court that he can properly protect his right without the assistance of
counsel.” (Emphasis supplied)
In Estrada v. People (G.R. No. 162371, August 25, 2005), the Supreme
Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for the crime of estafa
based only on prosecution evidence in view of the unexplained failure
of the accused to appear at several trial dates.
In this case, the accused argued, among others, that while her non-
appearance in the trials may be deemed to have waived her right to be
present during the proceedings, such waiver does not include a waiver
of her right to present evidence. Her conviction by the trial court is in
effect a denial of her constitutional right to be heard and present
evidence in her defense.

In denying the petition for certiorari of the petitioner (accused), the

Supreme Court held that by the mere fact that she jumped bail and
could no longer be found, petitioner is considered to have waived her
right to be present at the trial, and she and her counsel were to be
deemed to have received notice. As held in the earlier cases, the Court
ruled that once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or
jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court
and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is
deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.

Moreover, with the factual findings of the Court of Appeals that

petitioner and her counsel were duly served with copies of the assailed
RTC orders and decision at the addresses they submitted to the trial
court, the petitioner was indeed afforded a fair and reasonable
opportunity to be heard. They cannot now complain of alleged
violation of petitioner’s right to due process when it was by their own
fault that they lost the opportunity to present evidence.

In People v. Tabag (G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997) the Court

ruled that the trial court erred for failing to proceed with the trial of
some accused who escaped from preventive detention. Pursuant to the
last sentence of paragraph (2), Section 14, Article III of the
Constitution, trial against them should continue and upon its
termination, judgment should be rendered against them
notwithstanding their absence unless, of course, both accused have
died and the fact of such death is sufficiently established. The trial
court had the duty to rule on the evidence presented by the prosecution
against all the accused and to render its judgment accordingly.  It
should not wait for the fugitives’ re-appearance or re-arrest.  They
were deemed to have waived their right to present evidence on their
own behalf and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses who
testified against them.
In Gimenez v. Nazareno (G.R. No. L-37933, April 15, 1988), the Court
holds that an escapee who has been duly tried in absentia waives his
right to present evidence on his own behalf and to confront and cross-
examine witnesses who testified against him. By his failure to appear
during the trial of which he had notice, he virtually waived these
rights. The right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination
of witnesses is a personal right and may be waived. In the same vein,
his right to present evidence on his behalf, a right given to him for his
own benefit and protection, may be waived by him.
Express Waiver of Rights, Limitation
In the case of Carredo v. People (G.R. No. 77542 March 19, 1990), the
issue involved is whether or not an accused who, after arraignment,
waives his further appearance during the trial can be ordered arrested
by the court for non-appearance upon summons to appear for purposes
of identification.
The Court ruled that the provision of the Constitution authorizing the
trial in absentia of the accused in case of his non-appearance after
arraignment despite due notice simply means that he thereby waives
his right to meet the witnesses face to face among others. An express
waiver of appearance after arraignment, as in this case, is of the same
effect. However, such waiver of appearance and trial in
absentia does not mean that the prosecution is thereby deprived of
its right to require the presence of the accused for purposes of
identification by its witnesses which are vital for the conviction of
the accused.Such waiver of a right of the accused does not mean a
release of the accused from his obligation under the bond to appear in
court whenever so required. The accused may waive his right but not
his duty or obligation to the court. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, while the Court permits the accused to waive his presence at all
stages of the proceeding after arraignment, it can still order the
appearance of the accused where identification of his person by the
prosecution witnesses is necessary.

Judgment In Absentia
Promulgation of judgment in absentia is allowed under the Rules. The
fourth and last paragraph of Section 6 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure provides:

“In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of

promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be
made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving
him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.
 
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to
appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies
available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order
his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment,
however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of
court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his
absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his
absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said
remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.”

In Pascua v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 140243, December 14,

2000) it was held that such promulgation is valid provided the
following essential elements are present: (a) that the judgment be
recorded in the criminal docket; and (b) that a copy thereof be served
upon the accused or counsel.

Conclusion

Unlike the old rule where the trial in absentia of the fugitive/accused
could not be held because he could not be duly notified thereof, the
Court now considers the accused as deemed to have waived such
notice and with more reason if he escaped from the authorities. To
hold otherwise would impede the speedy disposition of justice and
would result to a mockery of the criminal justice system by just fleeing
from the hands of the law. After a wilful disobedience to the law and
the Court, one cannot ask for a relief anchored on his constitutional
rights the deprivation of which is caused by his utter disregard of the
law himself.