2. What are parts of a pleading as provided by the Rules of Court?

a) Caption:
The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and the docket
number if assigned.

b) The body:
The body of the pleading sets forth its designation, the allegations of the party's claims
or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading.

a. Paragraphs:
The allegations in the body of a pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so
numbered to be readily identified, each of which shall contain a statement of
a single set of circumstances so far as that can be done with convenience. A
paragraph may be referred to by its number in all succeeding pleadings.

b. Headings:
When two or more causes of action are joined the statement of the first shall
be prefaced by the words "first cause of action,'' of the second by "second
cause of action", and so on for the others.

c. Relief:
The pleading shall specify the relief sought, but it may add a general prayer
for such further or other relief as may be deemed just or equitable.

d. Date:
Every pleading shall be dated.

c) Signature and address:

Every pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in
either case his address which should not be a post office box.

d) Verification:
Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be
under oath, verified or accompanied by affidavit

e) Certification against forum shopping:

The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other
initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint
or initiatory pleading has been filed.
3. What are the technical requirements or form of a court- document as provided by A. M. No.
11-9-4-SC?

1.) Format and Style:

a) All pleadings, motions and similar papers intended for the court and quasi-judicial bodys
consideration and action (court-bound papers) shall written in single space with one-and-a
half space between paragraphs, using an easily readable font style of the partys choice, of
14-size font, and on a 13 inch by 8.5- inch white bond paper; and

b) All decisions, resolutions and orders issued by courts and quasi-judicial bodies under the
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court shall comply with these requirements.
Similarly covered are the reports submitted to the courts and transcripts of stenographic
notes.

2.) Margins and Prints:

The parties shall maintain the following margins on all court-bound papers: a left hand
margin of 1.5 inches from the edge; an upper margin of 1.2 inches from the edge; a right hand
margin of 1.0 inch from the edge; and a lower margin of 1.0 inch from the edge. Every page
must be consecutively numbered.

3.) Copies to be filed:

Unless otherwise directed by the court, the number of court- bound papers that a party is
required or desires to file shall be as follows:

a) In the Supreme Court, one original (properly marked) and four copies, unless the case is
referred to the Court En Banc, in which event, the parties shall file ten additional copies. For
the En Banc, the parties need to submit only two sets of annexes, one attached to the original
and an extra copy. For the Division, the parties need to submit also two sets of annexes, one
attached to the original and an extra copy. All members of the Court shall share the extra
copies of annexes in the interest of economy of paper.

Parties to cases before the Supreme Court are further required, on voluntary basis for the
first six months following the effectivity of this Rule and compulsorily afterwards unless the
period is extended, to submit, simultaneously with their court-bound papers, soft copies of
the same and their annexes (the latter in PDF format) either by email to the Courts e-mail
address or by compact disc (CD). This requirement is in preparation for the eventual
establishment of an e-filing paperless system in the judiciary.

b) In the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, one original (properly marked) and two
copies with their annexes;

c) In the Court of Tax Appeals, one original (properly marked) and two copies with annexes.
On appeal to the En Banc, one Original (properly marked) and eight copies with annexes; and

d) In other courts, one original (properly marked) with the stated annexes attached to it.

4) Annexes Served on Adverse Party:

A party required by the rules to serve a copy of his court-bound on the adverse party need
not enclose copies of those annexes that based on the record of the court such party already
has in his possession. In the event a party requests a set of the annexes actually filed with the
court, the part who filed the paper shall comply with the request within five days from receipt.
4. Give a sample of verification and certification against forum shopping. When is it
necessary to attach in a pleading?

Republic of the Philippines)

Makati City, Metro Manila ) S.S.

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, JUAN F. DELA CRUZ, under oath, respectfully state:

1. I am the President of plaintiff corporation in the above-entitled case;

Upon the instruction and authority of plaintiff, I caused the preparation and filing
of the foregoing Complaint;
2 Upon the instruction and authority of plaintiff, I caused the preparation and filing
of the foregoing Complaint;
3 I have read the foregoing pleading and attest to the truth in the allegations
therein of my own personal knowledge and on the basis of the records;
4 I hereby certify that:
4.1 I have not filed any other case involving the same facts and parties in the
Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or any other
court or tribunal;
4.2 To the best of my knowledge, no such case has been filed or been dismissed
in the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or any
other court or tribunal;
4.3 Should any such similar case come to my knowledge, I undertake to inform
the court within five (5) days from such notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___ day of ______ 2017 in Makati
City, Metro Manila.

JUAN F. DELA CRUZ

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of _____ 2017 in Makati City, Metro
Manila, and affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No. ________issued on
_________ at ___________.

Doc. No. ___;

Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 2017
 There is forum shopping when the following exists:
(1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in
both actions;
(2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the
same facts; and
(3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered
in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in
the other.
5. Atty. Raul filed a motion to dismiss of the complaint filed by Atty. Jai on grounds that the
complaint for recovery of possession lacks the proper verification and certification against
forum shopping. Atty. Jai alleged that the other copies particularly that filed of the court have
an attached verification and certification against forum shopping hence there is substantial
compliance.
a. Assume that you are Atty. Raul and write a motion to dismiss on the said
ground. Cite the law or jurisprudence.
b. Assume that you are Atty. Jai and write your comment/opposition to the
motion to dismiss on grounds of substantial compliance. Cite the law or
jurisprudence.

a)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
HALL OF JUSTICE
BUTUAN CITY

ATTY. RAUL APOLINARIO,

Petitioners,
Vs. CIVIL CASE NO. 57746-PSG

ATTY. JAI MABINI, ET. AL.

Respondent.

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Respondent, Atty. Jai Mabini, et. al., through the undersigned counsel,
appearing especially and solely for this purpose, and to this Honorable Court, most
respectfully moves for the dismissal of the Complaint on the following ground that THE
COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY POSSESSION LACKS THE PROPER VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING.

DISCUSSION

The verification and certification against forum shopping was only signed by Atty. Jai Mabini,
who is one of the respondents, which is a violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court
which requires all plaintiffs to sign the same. There was also no showing that Atty. Jai Mabini
was authorized by Andres Sacai, his co-respondent, to represent the latter and to sign the
said certification, and neither did the submission of the special powers of attorney of Sacai
and Atty. Mabini to that effect constitute substantial compliance with the rules. It can also be
further noted that respondents failed to comply with its prior Resolution dated October 11,
2010 requiring the submission of an amended verification/certification against forum
shopping within five (5) days from notice, warranting the dismissal of the CA petition on this
score.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed
for.

Butuan City, Philippines. September 20, 2017.

By:

ATTY. JOSE LUNA

Counsel for Petitioners
Brgy. Doongan, Butuan City 8600
Roll No. 14322
IBP O.R. No. 63475 7-19-15
Butuan City Chapter

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ANTONIO PILAR

Counsel for the Defendants
Brgy. Libertad
Butuan City 8600

EXPLANATION:

Service and filing of this motion were done through registered mail with return card
due to distance.

JOSE LUNA
b)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
HALL OF JUSTICE
BUTUAN CITY

ATTY. JAI MABINI ET. AL.,

Petitioners,
Vs. CIVIL CASE NO. 63412-PSG

ATTY. RAUL APOLINARIO.

Respondent.

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITIONERS, through Counsel, states:

1. On September 20, 2017, respondents through Counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss
based on the grounds that the complaint for recovery of possession lacks the proper
verification and certification against forum shopping.
2. Upon a thorough review of respondents averments, petitioners respectfully
submit that said Motion to Dismiss is bereft of merit.

II.
Discussion
A. Noncompliance with the requirements on or submission of a
defective verification and certification against forum shopping

3. The Court laid down the following guidelines with respect to noncompliance with
the requirements on or submission of a defective verification and certification against
forum shopping, viz.:

a. A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the

requirement on or submission of defective verification, and noncompliance with the
requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
 b. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission
or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that
strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of
justice may be served thereby.

c. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has

ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition
signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in
good faith or are true and correct.

d. As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a

defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent
submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the
ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons."

e. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the

plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped
as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as
when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common
cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification
against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.

f. Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the

party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons,
the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney
designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

B. Substantial Compliance with the Certification Against Forum

Shopping Requirement

4. Following paragraph 5 of the guidelines as aforestated, there was also substantial

compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement,
notwithstanding the fact that only Atty. Jai Mabini signed the same.

5. It has been held that under reasonable or justifiable circumstances - as in this case
where the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common
cause of action or defense - the rule requiring all such plaintiffs or petitioners to sign
the certification against forum shopping may be relaxed.
 6. Similar to the rules on verification, the rules on forum shopping are designed to
promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice; hence, it should not be
interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
legitimate objectives. The requirement of strict compliance with the provisions on
certification against forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature to
the effect that the certification cannot altogether be dispensed with or its
requirements completely disregarded. It does not prohibit substantial compliance
with the rules under justifiable circumstances.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that respondents Motion to Dismiss be
denied. All other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.

Butuan City, Agusan del Norte. September 25, 2017

By:

ATTY. ANTONIO PILAR

Counsel for Petitioners
Brgy. Libertad, Butuan City 8600
Roll No. 69961
IBP O.R. No. 153697 12-03-13
Butuan City Chapter

Copy furnished:

ATTY. JUAN DELA CRUZ

Counsel for the Defendants
Brgy. Doongan
Butuan City 8600
EXPLANATION:

Service and filing of this motion were done through registered mail with return card
due to distance.

ANTONIO PILAR
6.) Read the following cases and prepare a legal memorandum for the respondent:
a. Alih vs. Castro, 151 SCRA 279
b. Umil vs. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251
c. People vs Baao, 142 SCRA 476

a)
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila City

Rizal Alih, et al,

Petitioner

-versus- G.R. No. L-69401

Major General Delfin C. Castro, et al

Respondent.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

THE RESPONDENT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Supreme Court
most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver
that:

I. THE PARTIES

1.) Petitioners, are of legal age, and residing Gov. Alvarez street, Zamboanga City, where she
may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this Honorable Court;

2.) Respondents, members of the Philippine Marines, may be served with legal processes and
other judicial notices thereto.

II.FACTS OF THE CASE

1.) More than 200 Philippine marines and home defense forces raided the compound
occupied by the petitioners, Rizal Alih et. al., in search of loose firearms, ammunition and
other explosives;

2.) The people inside the compound resisted the invasion, and a crossfire between the
Philippine marines and the petitioner occurred resulting to a number of casualties. The
petitioners surrendered the next morning and 16 occupants were arrested. However,
petitioners were later to be finger-printed, paraffin-tested and photographed over their
objection. The military also inventoried and confiscated several M16 rifles, M14 rifle, rifle
grenades and rounds of ammunition;

3.) Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction and
restraining order. Their purpose was to recover the articles seized from them, to prevent
these from being used as evidence against them, and to challenge their finger-printing,
photographing and paraffin-testing being violative of their right against self-incrimination;

4.) Petitioner argued that the arms and ammunition were taken without a search warrant as
required by law under Sec. 3 of the 1973 Constitution, and it be declared inadmissible in
relation to Sec 4 (2) of the 1973 Constitution;

5.) Respondent justified their act on the ground that they were acting under superior orders
and that the measures was necessary due to the aggravation of peace and order problem in
their place.

III. ISSUES OF THE CASE

A.) Whether or not the confiscated items shall be considered admissible;

B.) Whether or not the finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-test is protected by the
constitutional right against self-incrimination.

IV.ARGUMENTS

A.) The confiscated items shall not be considered admissible:

a.) Superior orders cannot countermand the Constitution. There is no excuse for the
constitutional shortcuts done by the military;

b.) Search on petitioners premises being violative of the Constitution, all firearms and
ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in any of
the proceedings against the petitioner;

c.) The arrest does not fall also under the warrantless arrest provided for by Rule 113
Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court;

d.) It was also declared in Article IV, Section 4(2) that- Sec. 4(2) Any evidence
obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding;

e.) The firearms and ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible
in evidence in any proceedings against petitioners.

B.) Finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing, the acts are not covered by the
protection against self-incrimination:
 a.) Prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion only;

b.) Justice Holmes put it in Holt v. United States, 18 The prohibition of compelling a
man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of
physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion
of his body as evidence when it may be material.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the search of the petitioners' premises on November 25,1984, is hereby

declared ILLEGAL and all the articles seized as a result thereof are inadmissible in evidence
against the petitioners in any proceedings.

HOWEVER, the said articles shall remain in custodia legis pending the outcome of the
criminal cases that have been or may later be filed against the petitioners.

RAMONA AND REYES LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Petitioner
18th Floor, Newfound Building,
Brgy. San Isidro, Mandaluyong City

By:

ATTY. ANTONIO B. REYES

IBP Lifetime No. xxxxx; 03/21/1977
PTR No. xxxxx; 1/10/1976
Roll of Attorney No. 1976-000000
MCLE Compliance No. III 000000

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. CHRISTINA Z. RAMONA

Counsel for Petitioner
16th Floor, Old Highlands Condominium,
Brgy. Bel-air, Makati City
b.)
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

MANOLITA O. UMIL
Petitioners,

-Versus

FIDEL V. RAMOS
Respondents

x---------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

Respondent, by counsel, respectfully states that:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The consolidated case of 8 petitioners for habeas corpus assails the validity of the arrests
and searches made by the military on the petitioners.

II. FACTS

1. On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital,
Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was received by
their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said
hospital with a gunshot wound;

2. The wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who
murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about
12:00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City;

3. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie
Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Bian, Laguna
however it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural;

4. In view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical
Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively
identified by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols;

5. Separate motion before the court, seeking reconsideration:

 a. In the Umil case, the arresting officers had good reason to believe that an NPA
member (Rolando Dural, although using a fictitious name) was indeed being treated
at St. Agnes Hospital, Quezon City for gunshot wounds. The information was from the
attending doctor and hospital management, and therefore came from reliable
sources;

b. In the case of Wilfredo Buenaobra, the same admitted that he was an NPA
courier;

c. In the case of Amelia Roque, subversive documents and live ammunition were
found at the time of her arrest, and she admitted to owning such documents;

d. As regards Domingo Anonuevo & Ramon Casiple, agents frisked them and
found subversive documents & loaded guns without permits;

e. With regard to Vicky Ocaya, she arrived at a house subject to a search warrant.
Ammunition & subversive documents were found in her car;

f. In the Nazareno case, Narciso Nazareno was identified by Ramil Regala as the
latters companion in killing Romulo Bunye II.

III. ISSUE

Whether or Not Rolando Dural was lawfully arrested.

IV. ARGUMENTS

A. The arrests were legal. Regarding the subversion cases, the arrests were legal since
subversion is a form of a continuing crime together with rebellion, conspiracy or proposal
to commit rebellion/subversion, and crimes committed in furtherance thereof or in
connection therewith;

B. On the inciting to sedition case, the arrest was legal since and information was filed
prior to his arrest;

C. The arrests were not fishing expeditions but a result of an in-depth surveillance of
NPA safe houses pinpointed by none other than members of the NPA;

D. The right to preliminary investigation should be exercised by the offender as soon

as possible. Otherwise, it would be considered as impliedly waived and the filing of
information can proceed. This sort of irregularity is not sufficient to set aside a valid
judgement upon a sufficient complaint and after a trial free from error.
 PRAYER

ACCORDINGLY, the motions for reconsideration of the decision dated 9 July 1990, are
DENIED. This denial is FINAL.
SO ORDERED.

(Sgd.) ATTY. NEMESIO NERI

Counsel for Defendant
Address: San Juan City, Manila
IBP No: XXXXXX
PTR No: XXXXX
Roll No: XXXXX
MCLE No: XXXXX

Copy furnished:
ATTY. PEDRO GUEVARRA
Counsel for Plaintiff

EXPLANATION

In view of time and manpower restrictions, the above Memorandum was served via
registered mail as personal service could not be availed of without causing undue hardship
to the respondent.

(Sgd.) ATTY. NEMESIO NERI

Counsel for Defendant
c.)
Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Region
Branch ___, Quezon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CIVIL CASE NUMBER 27-112011

Plaintiff, For Damages

-Versus

DOROTEO BAAO
Defendant

x---------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

Respondent, by counsel, respectfully states that:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Respondent Doroteo Baao (hereinafter Baao) filed the present action for appeal from the
Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Br. 20.

II. FACTS

1. Rowena Federico, the complainant, is a school-dropout at thirteen, finishing only

Grade I, and of limited native intelligence. According to the trial judge, She typifies the
unschooled timid barrio lasssoft-spoken and shy in her ways. She exhibits a low mentality
and obvious susceptibility to yield to persuasions, to suggestions; a pronounced inability to
argue and resist.;

2. She has an invalid father and a mother who is out of the house every day making a
living and occasionally does not sleep with her family;

3. It is this girl who claims she was raped five times by the accused-appellant, three
times in December 1982, and twice in February 1983;

4. Shortly after the fifth rape, on March 4, 1983, she decided to tell her mother about the
offenses because, as she put it, she could not keep her terrible secret any longer;

5. According to her, the first three rapes were committed in the bathroom of the
accused-appellants house, the fourth in the backyard, and the fifth in the living room of the
same house;
6. The first three rapes were committed in the morning, at about 8oclock, on the dates
in December she cannot recall, the fourth at about 10 oclock in the evening on February 17,
1983 and the fifth at about noon of February 23, 1983;

7. All the five rapes were perpetrated in substantially the same way, through the use of
force and with threat of death for resisting during the act and for reporting it thereafter;

8. The rape caused laceration of the complainants hymen;

9. There was a full penetration and pain in every one of the five rapes;

10. In the statement she gave to the police, as taken and authenticated by Pat. Isagani,
one of the prosecution witnesses, she narrated her experiences in Tagalog in a
straightforward manner;

11. But testifying in court, as the trial judge noted, she was hesitant, inaudible at times,
and understandable nervous, prompting him to advise herSpeak lourder. Do not be
afraid. Do not hesitate to tell the truth. Just testify.;

12. The loss of the complainants virginity and her several accounts of sexual intercourse
were borne out by the testimony of Dr. Maximo Reyes, MEDICO-LEGAL OFFICER OF THE
National Bureau of Investigation, who also made the following report as summarized by the
trial court in its decision:

Genital findings compatible with sexual intercourse with man on or about the alleged
date of commission, The presence of hymenal laceration completely healed at 7:00
oclock position corresponding to the face of the watch, conformably with the
allegation of the victim that the alleged crime was commited way back or from
January up to February prior to the date of the examination which was March 7
(hearing of Oct. 5, 1983, t.s.n., p. 72), inasmuch as the edge of the said laceration is
still sharp and coaptible, meaning, that the alleged time of the commission or
infliction of said injury is three (3) months below (Ibid.,p.73); and that, the victim
underwent sexual intercourse for not more than five (5) timesConsidering the fact
that the vaginal orifice is moderately tight and rugosities are moderately prominent.;

13. Lucia Federico , the complainants mother, testified on how she came to know about
the multiple rapes of her daughter;

14. She also said that the accused-appellants wife had approached her and offered her
P2,000.00 in consideration for the withdrawal of her daughters charges;

III.ISSUES

Two issues immediately present themselves in this appeal from a decision convicting the
accused-appellant of two counts of rape committed on a thirteen-year old girl:
1. Would the complainant concoct a tale of multiple rape against her simply to get back
at the accused-appellant for scolding her when he allegedly caught her stealing from his
store?

2. If so, how about the physical evidence of her defloration and the indications of
subsequent coitus during the period when the rapes were allegedly committed?

IV. ARGUMENTS

A. Respondent had been falsely accused because he had once caught the girl stealing
soft drinks from his store and had scolded her. This had led to an altercation between him
and Lucia Federio, the mother, who then decided to file the case against him;

B. He was not in Dasmarias, Cavite, when the alleged rapes were committed but with
his daughter at her house at the Manila International Airport in Baclaran. This was
corroborated by his daughter, Alicia Baao, who said he was in her house from December 10
to 23, 1983, and practically did not leave the place during that period. The reason for his
stay, she said, was some carpentry work he had to do for her;

C. The complaint was filed to extort money from him, in the amount of P15,000.00,
later reduced to P8,000.00.21

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be

rendered in favor of the respondent by:

1) FINDING Doroteo Baao innocent of the crime of rape;

2) ORDERING Lucia Federio to pay both actual damages of P22,840, and moral
damages in an amount this Honorable Court finds just and reasonable under the
circumstances.

Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

Laguna, September 18, 2017.

(Sgd.) ATTY. MATTHEW MARTIN

Counsel for Defendant
Address: Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
IBP No: XXXXXX
PTR No: XXXXX
Roll No: XXXXX
MCLE No: XXXXX
Copy furnished:
ATTY. JOSE JUAN
Counsel for Plaintiff
7.) Write 2 pages essays on the following topic. First make an outline, then a draft
before finalizing your essay. So you have to submit the outline, the draft and your
final output.
a. The charge of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo under A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC.

Outline:
A. Introduction
1. Background of the case.
2. The parties involved in the case.

B. Body
1. Facts of the Case.
2. Discussions and Court rulings.

C. Conclusion
1. Comments on the Court ruling

Draft:

This is a plagiarism case filed to Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo in arriving
his decision in the Vinuya Case. Intellectual theft and outright plagiarism was manifested
when he wrote the decision for the Vinuya case and was accused of twisting the true intent
of the plagiarized sources to fit the arguments made by Justice Del Castillo.

Looking back in the events of the case, petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, and other
elderly women, filed a case to the Supreme Court against the Executive Secretary, the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, and the Office of the Solicitor General.
Petitioners claim that they were raped , seized, and held in houses or cells where Japanese
soldiers repeatedly ravished and abused them amidst World War II. On April 28, 2010, the
Court rendered judgement to dismiss the petition, in which Associate Justice Del Castillo
rendered the judgement. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and in a few days
later, Atty. Herminio Harry Roque, Jr. announced in his online blog that they will file a
supplemental petition against Associate Justice Del Castillo for plagiarism. The Justice
committed the plagiarism in his second reason for dismissing the petition of Vinuya which
the counsel contended that the Justice twisted the passages to support his arguments. The
following are the foreign articles allegedly plagiarized by Justice Del Castillo: 1) A Fiduciary
Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of International
Law (2009); 2) Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case
Western Reserve Journal of International Law (2006); and 3) Enforcing Erga Omnes
Obligations by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press (2005).

The authors also have expressed their concerns pertaining to the said plagiarisms and
they certified that the passages were actually twisted to support the arguments of the Justice.
Further, the researcher of the Justice was also put in question regarding the researching
work he has done to arrive to a decision in the Vinuya case. The researcher noted that she
committed an unintentional mistake in deleting the passages in the draft she submitted to
Justice Del Castillo. The Supreme Court Committee in-charge of the case at bar convened and
made their deliberations to the case. The following issues were raised during their
deliberations: 1) Whether or not, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case,
Justice Del Castillo plagiarized the published works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and
Ellis; and 2) Whether or not Justice Del Castillo twisted the works of these authors to make
it appear that such works supported the Courts position in the Vinuya decision.

The Court ruled that Justice Mariano C. del Castillo is not guilty of the charge of
plagiarism based on the reasons hereafter cited. The Court first looked upon the Passages
from Tams. In these passages, Tams believed that the footnoting was not an appropriate form
of referencing. However, the court said that the petitioners cannot deny that the Justice
attributed the passage to which Tams originally referred to, only that he did not made a
reference to Tams. This is the same to the passages from Ellis and Criddle-Descent. There is
actual intent as to attribute the sources only that there was a mistake in the preparation
conducted by the researcher of the Court. To think of it, it would be difficult to find 2 mistakes
in citations out of 119 total sources cited.

Now, the Court finds that there is no motive or reason for the Justice and his
researcher to omit such attributions. It was also noted from the decision that the Court
adheres to the Doctrine of stare decisis in which in deciding a case, a Justice must cite
historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions. A Justice cannot just
make judgements based on his own judgement because of this doctrine. That is, one is
compelled to cite previous jurisprudence. And finally, as contended by the petitioners, there
had been no twisting of the meaning in order to support the decision of the Court. As pointed
in the decision:

the lifted passages provided mere background facts that established the state of
international law at various stages of its development. These are neutral data that could
support conflicting theories regarding whether or not the judiciary has the power today
to order the Executive Department to sue another country or whether the duty to
prosecute violators of international crimes has attained the status of jus cogens.

In my opinion, the Courts ruling are correct that Justice del Castillo be innocent from
the charges of plagiarism. The acts committed by the Justice and his researcher were
unintentional mistake in omitting the attributions made to the authors. It is worth noting
that there was no motivation or intent in plagiarizing such passages because they attributed
mostly of the passages in the decision, 119 to be exact. I agree with the Courts that it is
inevitable to commit these kind of mistakes, especially that this are small details, not easily
seen by the eye.
Final Output:

According to Rain Bojangles , Intentionally using the quotes of others without author
attribution is plagiarism and contributes to illiteracy. Is this the case for Associate Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo?

The case at bar is a plagiarism case filed against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del
Castillo in arriving his decision in the Vinuya Case. Intellectual theft and outright plagiarism
were manifested when he wrote the decision in the Vinuya case and was accused of twisting
the true intent of the plagiarized sources to fit the arguments made by him.

Looking into the facts of the case, petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, and other elderly
women filed a case to the Supreme Court against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, and the Office of the Solicitor General. Petitioners
claim that they were raped, seized, and held in houses or cells where Japanese soldiers
repeatedly ravished and abused them amidst World War II. On April 28, 2010, the Court
rendered judgment to dismiss the petition, in which Associate Justice Del Castillo rendered
the judgment. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and in a few days later, Atty.
Herminio Harry Roque, Jr. announced in his online blog that they will file a supplemental
petition against Associate Justice Del Castillo for plagiarism. The Justice committed the
plagiarism in his second reason for dismissing the petition of Vinuya which the counsel
contended that the Justice twisted the passages to support his arguments. The following are
the foreign articles allegedly plagiarized by Justice Del Castillo: 1) A Fiduciary Theory of Jus
Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of International Law (2009);
2) Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western Reserve
Journal of International Law (2006); and 3) Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian
J. Tams, Cambridge University Press (2005).

The authors also have expressed their concerns pertaining to the said plagiarism and
they certified that the passages were actually twisted to support the arguments of the Justice.
Further, the researcher of the Justice was also put in question regarding the researching
work he has done to arrive at a decision in the Vinuya case. The researchers noted that she
committed an unintentional mistake in deleting the passages in the draft she submitted to
Justice Del Castillo. The Supreme Court Committee in-charge of the case at bar convened and
made their deliberations to the case. The following issues were raised during their
deliberations: 1) Whether or not, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case,
Justice Del Castillo plagiarized the published works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and
Ellis; and 2) Whether or not Justice Del Castillo twisted the works of these authors to make
it appear that such works supported the Courts position in the Vinuya decision.

The Court ruled that Justice Mariano C. del Castillo is not guilty of the charge of
plagiarism based on the reasons hereafter cited. The Court first looked upon the Passages
from Tams. In these passages, Tams believed that the footnoting was not an appropriate form
of reference. However, the court said that the petitioners cannot deny that the Justice
attributed the passage to which Tams originally referred to, only that he did not make a
reference to Tams. This is the same to the passages from Ellis and Criddle-Descent. There is
actual intent as to attribute the sources only that there was a mistake in the preparation
conducted by the researcher of the Court. To think of it, it would be difficult to find 2 mistakes
in citations out of 119 total sources cited.

Now, the Court finds that there is no motive or reason for the Justice and his
researcher to omit such attributions. It was also noted from the decision that the Court
adheres to the Doctrine of stare decisis in which in deciding a case, a Justice must cite
historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions. A Justice cannot just
make judgements based on his own judgement because of this doctrine. That is, one is
compelled to cite previous jurisprudence. And finally, as contended by the petitioners, there
had been no twisting of the meaning in order to support the decision of the Court. As pointed
in the decision:

the lifted passages provided mere background facts that established the state of
international law at various stages of its development. These are neutral data that could
support conflicting theories regarding whether or not the judiciary has the power today
to order the Executive Department to sue another country or whether the duty to
prosecute violators of international crimes has attained the status of jus cogens.

In my opinion, the Courts ruling is correct that Justice del Castillo be innocent from
the charges of plagiarism. The acts committed by the Justice and his researcher were
unintentional mistakes in omitting the attributions made to the authors. It is worth noting
that there was no motivation or intent in plagiarizing such passages because they attributed
most of the passages in the decision, 119 to be exact. I agree with the Courts that it is
inevitable to commit this kind of mistakes, especially that these are small details, not easily
seen by the eye.