Flashcards Studio

In a criminal case for estafa, pre-trial conference is scheduled under Rule 118. The People and the offended party appear; the accused F fails to appear and does not send counsel. The pre-trial conference proceeds, and the court drafts a pre-trial order listing admitted facts, stipulations, and the calendar for trial. A week later, F moves to set aside the pre-trial order, contending that his non-appearance was due to a grave and justifiable cause: he was required to perform essential duties in a government crisis response unit at a distant province, evidenced by an assignment order and an official certification. The prosecution opposes. (a) Identify the controlling doctrine governing non-appearance at a pre-trial conference. (b) Distinguish the sanctions or remedies available for non-appearance, including when a continuance or dismissal may be warranted. (c) Apply the doctrine to the facts and determine whether the pre-trial order should be sustained or set aside, and state the proper course of action with brief justification.