OTHER CASES: 1. Borja was charged of physical injuries, he was notified for arraignment he did not appear.

Second notice of arraignment, he did not appear. Third notice of arraignment, he did not appear and the judge allowed the prosecution to present its evidence. After presentation of the evidence, the accused was again notified. The judge gave the accused the chance to present evidence but he did not appear. So the judge decided it, he was found guilty. It was appealed but he was found guilty because the evidence was unrebutted, it was never denied. Is the decision valid? SC: No. because, the first requisite was not present, there was no arraignment. (BORJA vs.
MENDOZA 77 SCRA 420)

( ITO YUNG A, B, C,D kahapon) Four men were accused of murder, no bail recommended. They were all arrested; they were arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. After presentation of evidence by the prosecution, the judge said I am allowing you 250,000 pesos each as bail. The four posted bail. The fiscal complained and filed a MR saying Your honor, you review the evidence. The evidence of guilt is strong insofar as the evidence that I presented The judge agreed that the evidence of guilt is strong so he cancelled the bond and a new warrant of arrest was issued against the four. Only three were arrested, no bail. Trial proceeded, evidence presented and all witnesses pointed to the four. After trial, the judge decided that the three appears to have committed the crime but rendered decision as to the three only because trial was not held to the fourth accused. The fourth will be tried again after his arrest. Was there valid trial in absentia insofar as the fourth accused is concern?

SC: Yes, because he was arraigned. In paying bonds, it must be signed with address indicated therein.

a. Address must be specified; b. If I will change my address, I will inform the court about it; c. Since you are presumed notified, your absence is deemed unjustifiable. In this case, he never changed his address, therefore he is duly notified (Constructive Notice). He should be included in the conviction of the three accused, the prosecution should not be required the fiscal to present its evidences all over again after arrest. (PEOPLE vs. SALAS,
BRANCH 5, RTC OF CEBU CITY 143 SCRA 163)

I.

RIGHT TO SECURE WITNESSES AND PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

1. Rumble cases in Olongapo City. Cavili and Fajardo their opponent were able to file before the fiscal to who accept and said I was the aggrieved party, all of my injuries on my body are all at the back, I was the one who was attacked its not the person who filed the complaint. Unfortunately, the other person were able to file a case ahead the fiscals office. He is now the accused. But during the trial, he was still to prove that I was the offended party and that can be proven by the admitting physician of Olongapo Hospital that my injuries are at the back. Unfortunately, when he requested for a subpoena for the doctor, the doctor resigned and was already in New York. So he questioned the court and said that if he will not testify my right to secure witnesses and production of evidence will be violated. He went to SC. Can you compel the judge to issue a subpoena to a doctor already in New York? (Writs and processes are only within the four corners of the Philippines) Will his right to secure evidence violated? SC: No, because the record when you were admitted at the emergency of the Olongapo general Hospital is still there at the record section of the hospital.