Flashcards Studio

Marco is accused of Theft in a city ordinance violation and a preliminary investigation is conducted by the City Prosecutor. Marco is summoned and given a date to appear, but on that date he does not show up despite proper summons and notification. The prosecutor proceeds with the investigation in Marco’s absence, hearing the complainant and two witnesses, and thereafter issues a Resolution finding probable cause and directing the filing of information in the proper court. Marco, through his counsel, later asserts that his absence violated due process and requests a reinvestigation, arguing he was not afforded a fair opportunity to present his defense.
(a) State the controlling doctrine on the effect of the absence of the accused at the preliminary investigation.
(b) Distinguish this rule from the rules governing absence during trial or other proceedings in criminal cases.
(c) Apply the rule to these facts: Did Marco’s absence render the preliminary investigation invalid or improperly conducted? What remedies does Marco have to challenge or rectify the situation, if any?