ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO

LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER

o TARP Rule is useful technique to
analyze facts according to the
LEGAL RESEARCH following factors.
T Thing/ Subj Matter
Process of finding the laws, rules and
regulations that govern activities in A- Cause of Action/ Defense
human society.
It involves locating both the laws and R- Relief Sought
rules which are enforced by the State
P- Parties
and the Commentaries which explain
or analyze these rules >putting the elements in an example:
The investigation for information
necessary to support legal decision Thing or subject matter a party claims a
violation of the terms of a contract
making.
Includes each step of a process that Cause of action breach of contract
begins with analyzing facts of a
Relief sought civil action for damages/action
probem and concludes with applying for specific performance
and communicating the results of the
investigation. Persons or parties involved lessor and lessee

WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR LEGAL Formulate the legal issues to

RESEARCH? be researched

A lawyer is required to provide >goal: classify and categorize problems into

competent representation to client. general and increasingly specific, subject
A lawyer must be able to research areas to begin to hypothesize legal issues
the law to provide competent >initial activity which presupposes
representation knowledge of substantive law
>drafted statements of the issue should be
BASIC STEPS IN CONDUCTING arranged logically to form an outline
RESEARCH

A. SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO Research the issues presented

LEGAL RESEARCH [IA.F.R.U]
1. Identify and Analyze the >method:
significant facts a. organize and plan best practice
2. Formulate the legal issues to be is to write down all sources to be
researched researched under each issue to be
3. Research the issues presented researched
4. Upadate b. identify, read and update all
relevant constitutional provisions,
Identify and Analyze statutes and administrative
Significant Facts regulations
Factual analysis is the 1st sep c. identify, read and update all
in formulating legal issue to be relevant case law i.e. laws applied
researched. in case files
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
d. refine the search Department to espouse the petitioners
claims for official apology and other
forms of reparations against Japan
Update before the International Court of Justice
and other international tribunals has
>rationale: law changes constantly
NO MERIT because:
1. the prerogative to determine
Case briefing a students digest or
whether to espouse petitioners
condensation of a reported case
claims against Japan belongs
>components of a case brief:
exclusively to the Executive
1. Facts describe events between
Department; and
the parties leading to the litigation
2. the Philippines is not under any
and tel how the case came before
international obligation to espouse
the court that is now deciding it
the petitioners claims.
2. Issue/s the question the court
must decide to resolve the dispute Discontented with the foregoing
between the parties in the case decision, the petitioners in Vinuya filed a
before it motion for reconsideration.
3. Ruling the courts decision on Subsequently, they also filed a
the issue that is actually before it supplemental motion for
reconsideration, this time accusing the
Justice del Castillo of plagiarizing
PLAGIARISM (copying without attribution) and twisting
passages from three foreign legal
articles to support the Courts position in
In Matter of Charges of Plagiarism, etc. the Vinuya decision:
Against Associate Justice Mariano Del
Castillo (1) A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by
Professors Evan J. Criddle (Associate Professor
Designated member plagiarized works of of Syracuse University College of Law) and
certain authors and twisted their meanings Evan Fox-Descent (Assistant Professor of
to support decision McGill University Faculty of Law) published in
the Yale Journal of International Law in 2009;
OCTOBER12,2010
(2) Breaking the Silence: Rape as an
FACTS: International Crime by Mark Ellis (Executive
Director of the International Bar Association),
In the landmark decision of Vinuya vs. published in the Case Western Reserve Journal
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, of International Law in 2006; and
promulgated last April 28, 2010, the (3) Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in
Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition International Law by Professor Christian J. Tams
filed by a group of Filipino comfort (Chair of International Law of University of
Glasgow School of Law), published in
women during the Japanese military Cambridge University Press (2005).
occupation of the Philippines.
The Court, speaking through Justice
Mariano C. del Castillo, held that the
The Court then referred the charges
petition seeking to compel the Executive
against Justice Del Castillo to its
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
Committee on Ethics and Ethical standards of counsel for petitioners is not an
Standards, chaired by Chief Justice ethical matter but one concerning clarity of
Renato Corona, for investigation and writing. The statement See Tams,
recommendation. Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in
After the proceedings before it, the International Law (2005) in the Vinuya
Committee submitted its findings decision is an attribution no matter if Tams
and recommendations to the Court thought that it gave him somewhat less
en banc, which then treated and credit than he deserved. Such attribution
decided the controversy as an altogether negates the idea that Justice Del
administrative matter. Castillo passed off the challenged passages
as his own.
II. THE ISSUES
That it would have been better had Justice
1. Did Justice Del Castillo, in writing the Del Castillo used the introductory phrase
opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case, cited in rather than the phrase See would
plagiarize the published works of authors make a case of mere inadvertent slip in
Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis? attribution rather than a case of manifest
intellectual theft and outright plagiarism. If
2. Did Justice Del Castillo twist the works
the Justices citations were imprecise, it
of these authors to make it appear that such
would just be a case of bad footnoting
works supported the Courts position in the
rather than one of theft or deceit. If it were
Vinuya decision?
otherwise, many would be target of abuse
III. THE RULING for every editorial error, for every mistake in
citing pagination, and for every technical
1. NO, Justice Del Castillo, in writing the detail of form.
opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case,
did NOT plagiarize the published works As regards the passages from Ellis, the
of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Court notes that the lengthy passages in
Ellis. Footnote 65 of Vinuya came almost
verbatim from Ellis article but did not
At its most basic, plagiarism means the theft contain an acknowledgment or introduction
of another persons language, thoughts, or that they are from that article. Moreover, as
ideas. To plagiarize, as it is commonly regards the passages from the work of
understood according to Webster, is to take Professors Criddle and Descent, it was
(ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and also observed that the Vinuya decision lifted
pass them off as ones own. The passing the portions, including their footnotes, from
off of the work of another as ones own is Criddle-Descents article, A Fiduciary
thus an indispensable element of Theory of Jus Cogens as footnotes in the
plagiarism. Vinuya decision without any attributions
made to the two authors. Unless amply
explained, these unattributed lifting from the
As regards that one passage from works of Ellis and Criddle-Descent could be
Professor Tams, the Court believes that construed as plagiarism.
whether or not the footnote is sufficiently
detailed, so as to satisfy the footnoting
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
The explanation from one of Justice Del 2. NO, Justice Del Castillo did NOT
Castillos researchers, a court-employed twist the works of authors Tams, Criddle-
attorney explained how she accidentally Descent, and Ellis to make it appear that
deleted the attributions, originally such works supported the Courts
planted in the beginning drafts of her position in the Vinuya decision.
report to him, which report eventually
became the working draft of the decision. The decision [in Vinuya] did NOT twist the
She said that, for most parts, she did her passages from Tams, Criddle-Descent, and
research electronically. For international Ellis. To twist means to distort or pervert
materials, she sourced these mainly from the meaning of. Here, nothing in the Vinuya
Westlaw, an online research service for decision said or implied that, based on the
legal and law-related materials to which the lifted passages, authors Tams, Criddle-
Court subscribes. The researcher showed Descent, and Ellis supported the Courts
the Committee the early drafts of her report conclusion that the Philippines is not under
in the Vinuya case and these included the any obligation in international law to
passages lifted from the separate articles of espouse Vinuya et al.s claims.
Criddle-Descent and of Ellis with proper
attributions to these authors. But, as it
happened, in the course of editing and FEBRUARY 8,2011
cleaning up her draft, the researcher
accidentally deleted the attributions. FACTS:

The Malaya Lolas received an adverse

decision in the case Vinuya vs Romulo
It was notable that neither Justice Del decided by the Supreme Court on April
Castillo nor his researcher had a motive 28, 2010. The Malaya Lolas sought the
or reason for omitting attribution for the annulment of said decision due to the
lifted passages to Criddle-Descent or to alleged irregularity in the writing of the
Ellis. The latter authors are highly text of the decision. Allegedly, the
respected professors of international law. ponente of said case, Justice Mariano
The law journals that published their works del Castillo copied verbatim portions of
have exceptional reputations. It did not the decision laid down in said case
make sense to intentionally omit attribution from three works by three foreign
to these authors when the decision cites an authors without acknowledging said
abundance of other sources. Citing these authors hence an overt act of
authors as the sources of the lifted plagiarism which is highly
passages would enhance rather than reprehensible.
diminish their informative value. Both Plagiarism as defined by Blacks Law
Justice Del Castillo and his researcher gain Dictionary is the deliberate and
nothing from the omission. Thus, the failure knowing presentation of another
to mention the works of Criddle-Decent and persons original ideas or creative
Ellis was unquestionably due to expressions as ones own.
inadvertence or pure oversight.
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
ISSUE: arose from a clerical error. It was shown
before the Supreme Court that the
Whether or not plagiarism is applicable to researcher who finalized the draft written by
decisions promulgated by the Supreme Justice del Castillo accidentally deleted the
Court. citations/acknowledgements; that in all,
there is still an intent to acknowledge and
not take such passages as that of Justice
HELD: del Castillos own.

No. It has been a long standing practice

in this jurisdiction not to cite or
acknowledge the originators of passages OTHER UNETHICAL CONDUCTS
and views found in the Supreme Courts CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
decisions. Never in the judiciarys more RESPONSIBILITY
than 100 years of history has the lack of
attribution been regarded and demeaned as CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD
plagiarism. THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
As put by one author (this time RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL
acknowledged by the Court), Joyce C. PROCESSES.
George from her Judicial Opinion Writing RULE 1.01
Handbook: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES
CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH
trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge
TO THE COURT.
of plagiarism even if ideas, words or RULE 10.01
phrases from a law review article, novel A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,
thoughts published in a legal periodical or nor consent to the doing of any in
language from a partys brief are used Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
without giving attribution. Thus judges are Court to be misled by any artifice.
free to use whatever sources they deem RULE 10.02
appropriate to resolve the matter before A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the contents of a paper,
them, without fear of reprisal. This
the language or the argument of
exemption applies to judicial writings opposing counsel, or the text of a
intended to decide cases for two decision or authority, or knowingly cite
reasons: the judge is not writing a as law a provision already rendered
literary work and, more importantly, the inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
purpose of the writing is to resolve a assert as a fact that which has not been
dispute. As a result, judges adjudicating proved.
cases are not subject to a claim of legal
plagiarism.

Further, as found by the Supreme Court, the

omission of the acknowledgment by Justice
del Castillo of the three foreign authors
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
HIPOS, SR. VS. BAY HELD:

Violation of Rule 10.02 of CPR; As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of

statement of petitioners counsel if mandamus lies only to compel an officer
utterly misleading to perform a ministerial duty, not a
discretionary one; mandamus will not
FACTS: issue to control the exercise of discretion
by a public officer where the law imposes
Two Informations for the crime of rape upon him the duty to exercise his
and one Information for the crime of judgment in reference to any manner in
acts of lasciviousness were filed which he is required to act, because it is
against petitioners Darryl Hipos, his judgment that is to be exercised and
Jaycee Corsio, Arthur Villaruel and not that of the court.
two others before RTC presided by
Judge Bay. However, mandamus is never available to
Private complainants AAA and BBB direct the exercise of judgment or
filed a Motion for Reinvestigation discretion in a particular way or the
asking Judge Bay to order the City retraction or reversal of an action already
Prosecutor of Quezon City to study if taken in the exercise of either.
the proper Informations had been filed
against petitioners and their co- If petitioners believed that Judge Bay
accused. committed grave abuse of discretion in the
issuance of such Order denying the Motion to
Judge Bay granted the Motion and Withdraw Informations, the proper remedy of
ordered a reinvestigation of the cases. petitioners should have been to file a Petition
Hipos and other filed their Joint for Certiorari against the assailed Order of
Memorandum to Dismiss the Case[s] Judge Bay.
before the City Prosecutor. City
Prosecutor affirmed the Informations Petitioners cite the following excerpt from our
filed against them. ruling in Sanchez v. Demetriou[7]:
However, 2nd Asst. City Prosecutor The appreciation of the evidence involves the
reversed the Resolution holding that use of discretion on the part of the prosecutor,
there was lack of probable cause. and we do not find in the case at bar a clear
City Prosecutor filed a Motion to showing by the petitioner of a grave abuse of
Withdraw Informations before Judge such discretion.
Bay. Judge Bay denied the motion
hence the petition. The decision of the prosecutor may be
reversed or modified by the Secretary of
ISSUE: Justice or in special cases by the President of
the Philippines. But even this Court cannot
CAN THE HON. SUPREME COURT order the prosecution of a person against
COMPEL RESPONDENT JUDGE BAY whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient
evidence to support at least a prima facie
TO DISMISS THE CASE THROUGH A
case. The courts try and absolve or convict the
WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY VIRTUE OF accused but as a rule have no part in the initial
THE RESOLUTION OF THE OFFICE OF decision to prosecute him.
THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON
CITY FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE The possible exception is where there is an
AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND unmistakable showing of grave abuse of
SUBSEQUENTLY FILING A MOTION TO discretion that will justify a judicial
WITHDRAW INFORMATION? intrusion into the precincts of the
executive. But in such a case the proper
remedy to call for such exception is a
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
petition for mandamus, not certiorari or Hence, the ORDER issued by RJBAY is NULL
prohibition.[8] (Emphases supplied.) and VOID in view of the recent ruling of the Hon.
Supreme Court in Ledesma vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 113216, September 5, 1997,
86 SCAD 695, 278 SCRA 657 which states that:
Petitioners have taken the above passage
way out of its context In the absence of a finding of grave abuse of
discretion, the courts bare denial of a motion to
Petitioners also claim that since Judge Bay withdraw information pursuant to the Secretarys
granted a Motion for Reinvestigation, he resolution is void. (Underscoring ours).
should have deferred to the Resolution of
6.11. It is therefore respectfully submitted that
Asst. City Prosecutor De Vera withdrawing the Hon. Supreme Court disregard the argument
the case.[11] Petitioners cite the following of the OSG because of its falsity.
portion of our Decision in People v.
Montesa, Jr.: This statement of petitioners counsel is
utterly misleading. There is no such
In the instant case, the respondent Judge statement in our Decision in Ledesma
granted the motion for reinvestigation and
directed the Office of the Provincial Petitioners claim that since even the
Prosecutor of Bulacan to conduct the respondent judge himself found no probable
reinvestigation. The former was, therefore, cause against them, the Motion to Withdraw
deemed to have deferred to the authority of Informations by the Office of the City
the prosecution arm of the Government to Prosecutor should be granted.
consider the so-called new relevant and
material evidence and determine whether Even a cursory reading of the assailed
the information it had filed should stand. Order, however, clearly shows that the
insertion of the word no in the above
Like what was done to our ruling in dispositive portion was a mere clerical error.
Sanchez, petitioners took specific The assailed Order states in full:
statements from our Decision, carefully
cutting off the portions which would expose After a careful study of the sworn statements of
the real import of our pronouncements. the complainants and the resolution dated
March 3, 2006 of 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor
In a seemingly desperate attempt on the Lamberto C. de Vera, the Court finds that there
part of petitioners counsel, he tries to was probable cause against the herein accused.
The actuations of the complainants after the
convince us that a judge is allowed to deny
alleged rapes and acts of lasciviousness cannot
a Motion to Withdraw Informations from the be the basis of dismissal or withdrawal of the
prosecution only when there is grave abuse herein cases. Failure to shout or offer tenatious
of discretion on the part of the prosecutors resistance did not make voluntary the
moving for such withdrawal; and that, where complainants submission to the criminal acts of
there is no grave abuse of discretion on the the accused (People v. Velasquez, 377 SCRA
part of the prosecutors, the denial of the 214, 2002). The complainants affidavits indicate
Motion to Withdraw Informations is void. that the accused helped one another in
Petitioners counsel states in the committing the acts complained of. Considering
Memorandum: that the attackers were not strangers but their
trusted classmates who enticed them to go to
6.10. Furthermore, the ORDER dated October the house where they were molested, the
2, 2006 of the Respondent Judge BAY complainants cannot be expected to react
consisting of 9 pages which was attached to the forcefully or violently in protecting themselves
URGENT PETITION did not point out any iota of from the unexpected turn of events. Considering
grave abuse of discretion committed by Asst. also that both complainants were fifteen (15)
City Prosecutor De Vera in issuing his years of age and considered children under our
Resolution in favor of the sons of the Petitioners. laws, the ruling of the Supreme Court in People
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11,
2004 becomes very relevant. The Supreme
Court ruled as follows:

Rape victims, especially child victims, should not

be expected to act the way mature individuals
would when placed in such a situation. It is not
proper to judge the actions of children who have
undergone traumatic experience by the norms of
behavior expected from adults under similar
circumstances. The range of emotions shown by
rape victim is yet to be captured even by
calculus. It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform
reactions from rape victims (People v. Malones,
G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004).

The Court finds no need to discuss in detail the

alleged actuations of the complainants after the
alleged rapes and acts of lasciviousness. The
alleged actuations are evidentiary in nature and
should be evaluated after full blown trial on the
merits. This is necessary to avoid a suspicion of
prejudgment against the accused.

As can be seen, the body of the assailed

Order not only plainly stated that the court
found probable cause against the
petitioners, but likewise provided an
adequate discussion of the reasons for such
finding. Indeed, the general rule is that
where there is a conflict between the
dispositive portion or the fallo and the body
of the decision, the fallo controls. However,
where the inevitable conclusion from the
body of the decision is so clear as to show
that there was a mistake in the dispositive
portion, the body of the decision will prevail.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for

Mandamus is DISMISSED. Let the records
of this case be remanded to the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City for the
resumption of the proceedings therein. The
Regional Trial Court is directed to act on the
case with dispatch.

Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr. is ORDERED

to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be
disciplined as a member of the Bar for his
disquieting conduct as herein discussed.