Philippine Copyright, 2014

by

ISBN 978-971-23-7492-0
ITEM CODE 85-OT- 00069-B

No portion of this book may be copied or reproduced in books,

pamphlets, outlines or notes, whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten,
copied in different electronic devices or in any other form, for distribution or
sale, without the written permission of the author except brief passages in
books, articles, reviews, legal papers, and judicial or other official
proceedings with proper citation.

Any copy of this book without the corresponding number and the
signature of either of the authors on his page either proceeds from an
illegitimate source or is in possession of one who has no authority to dispose
of the same.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

BY THE AUTHORS
 I dedicate this book to my parents, Domiciano and Josefina Abad, whom I
cannot honor enough.

Roberto A. Abad
 CONTENTS

1. Legal Writing
Scope of Legal Writing
Aims of the Book
2. The Legal Dispute
Meaning of Legal Dispute
Its Significance in Legal Writing
Legal Dispute and The Principal Issue
Importance of Principal Issue
3. Stages of Writing
Two Stages of Legal Writing
Value of Pre-Work
4. Getting at the Facts of the Case
Facts of a Case
Random Notes versus Summary
Facts Seen through the Issue
Cluttered Facts
Relevant Facts Extracted
Facts Set in Sequence
Writing Exercises
The Case of a Child and a Neighbor’s Dog
5. Knowing the Applicable Law or Rule
Sources of Law or Rule
Facts Reexamined
Writing Exercises
6. Getting into the Issues
Issues in Multiple Legal Disputes
Subordinate Controlling Issues
Relevant and Irrelevant Issues
A List of All Issues
Factual and Legal Issues
Correct Statement of the Issues
Threshold Issues
Writing Exercises
7. Roughing Out the Argument
Balanced Presentation
Anatomy of a Legal Argument
The Key Fact In Rules
The Case Fact
Meaning of “Rule”
Roughed Out Arguments
Creative Thinking
Arguments that Build Up
Arguments that Destroy
Pre-Work Reviewed
Writing Exercises
8. Introducing the Issues
Need for Introduction
Sufficiency of Introduction
The Statement of the Case
The Statement of Facts
Short Introductions
Writing Exercises
9. Writing the Argument
Jump Off Points
 Three Statements of an Argument
Persuasive Arguments
Convincing Rule Statement
Convincing Fact Statement
Correct Conclusion Statement
Positioning Variation
Building Blocks of Arguments
Omitted Statement
Closing Statement
Writing Exercises
10. Tightening Your Work
Language Problems
Needless Words
Active versus Passive Voice
Third Person Speaks
Block Quotations
Writing Exercises
11. Writing Clearly
Right Connectives
Abstract versus Concrete Writing
Substitute Names
Headings
Writing Exercises
12. Writing Legalese
Legal Clichés
Old English
Sounding Formal
Cheap Words
Self-praise
 Sentence-length Variety
Writing Exercises
13. Writing Legal Opinions
Illustrative Case: Chan v. Century Bank
14. Writing Trial Memoranda
Illustrative Case: Maranan v. Gonzalo Realty
Writing Exercises
15. Writing Petitions For Review
Illustrative Case: Excal Corp. v. Jimenez
Writing Exercises
16. Writing a Decision
Illustrative Case: Hudson Power Corp. v. Nemo Shipping
Writing Exercises

APPENDICES
Appendix A –– People v. Takad
Appendix B –– Garcia v. Silver Films, Inc
Appendix C –– National Supplies Authority v. Allied Shipping Corp
Appendix D –– Pointers in Answer School and Bar Examination Questions
 This edition includes pointers
in answering law school and bar
examination questions.
 1.

Legal Writing

Scope of Legal Writing

This book is about the things that lawyers write to win others over to
their point of view. If you were a practicing lawyer, you would be doing a
lot of this kind of work. For instance, when your client, say, a restaurant
owner, writes to you regarding the threat of a possible lawsuit from a
customer who was taken ill after eating in your client’s restaurant, you may
have to write him back, giving him your views regarding his probable
liability based on the facts he tells you. This is legal writing.
When the case gets to court, you would be filing a number of pleadings
like an answer to the customer’s complaint, denying your client’s liability or
minimizing it. Further down the road, you would probably file for him
assorted pleadings, motions, oppositions, replies, rejoinders, memoranda, and
other papers. These are legal writings.
And if you were to be the judge, who is also a lawyer, and must decide the
case, you would have to put your decision in writing, announce its results,
and reveal to the parties your reasons for the decision. Under our laws, the
parties are entitled to know why they won or lost a case. The strength of your
decision lies in the validity and persuasiveness of the opinion supporting it.
This, too, is legal writing.
But legal writing does not only begin when you pass the bar. As law
students, you begin to churn out some form of legal writing once you enter
law school. When you digest cases, answer examination questions, and write
your thesis or any other paper in law school, you begin to train yourself for
actual legal writing because the most basic elements you need to apply in
digesting cases and answering your law school exams are the same ones you
will use in legal writing in the practice of law: the facts, the issue, and the
arguments or principles of law that resolve the issue.
Aims of the Book
The principal aim of this book is to help you write pleadings, legal
opinions, memoranda, and other position papers, clearly and convincingly,
and to win others to your point of view. Consequently, apart from learning
the general structure of effective legal writing, this book will do more.
One. This book will help you identify and put together the facts on which
the issues of a case will be decided. As a rule, cases will not come with the
facts all sorted out for you. You will discover, as you study the documents,
hold interviews with the parties involved, or simply examine the records, that
the relevant facts in a case are far from organized and come mixed up with
the irrelevant. He who is able to extract and organize the relevant facts would
have the advantage of arguing from uncluttered truth. You can get there if
you persevere in the lessons of this book.
Two. This book will also help you find the law or rule that applies to your
case given the nature of the legal dispute involved. You will discover that
laws are not restricted to those enacted by duly constituted legislative bodies
called “statute law.” A great body of laws also evolves from judicial
precedents, where courts interpret laws as these apply to specific cases. This
body of laws is referred to as “case law.” Your knowledge of the law
involved in your case, both statute law and case law, must complement your
knowledge of the facts to prepare you for the job of writing to persuade your
reader to your point of view.
Three. This book will help you correctly identify the issue or issues in a
case. The issue does for an opinion or a pleading what the rudder does for a
ship. If you argue the wrong issue, it would be like pointing your rudder to
the wrong direction such that your argument would not touch port and miss
the real issue that the case presents. When this happens, your case would be
decided on an issue that you chose not to be heard on. You can avoid this.
Four. This book will help you pack power into your arguments. It will
show you the elements of a balanced presentation of those arguments and
what it takes to destroy the argument of the opposite side while building up
your own. It will also show you the importance of a closing statement and
how you could prepare a most effective one.
Five. This book will show you how to edit your work, tighten your
sentences, and make your writing come through to your reader clearly. A
number of legal writing prescriptions in this book may appear controversial
to some but controversies initiate discussion and the free marketplace of ideas
always profits from it. All that is required is an open mind.
Six. This book aims to help you write better. Some say that the ability to
write well is a natural gift that is not available to all. This might be true. But
the fact that you have gotten this far in your studies gives you the right to
assume that you have the gift to write. All you have to do now is improve on
your gift.
Master a few refurbished techniques collected in this book and you are on
your way to preparing adequate, clear, and convincing pleadings, legal
opinions, memoranda, and other position papers. Of course, the greatest
secret of success in writing well is in constantly striving to use what you
learn. They will not work unless you put them into practice.
And beyond practice, to be a good a writer one must be a prolific reader.
Learn the styles of effective writers such as best selling authors, opinion
writers, and respectable journalists. During your stay in law school you are
forced to absorb the writing style used in laws and jurisprudence, which may
seem impressive but not the most effective way of communication. This book
will encourage you to view legal writing as a communication skill as much as
an advocacy skill.
 2.

The Legal Dispute

A legal dispute lies at the heart of every case. In fact, most of your writing
assignments as a lawyer would probably be devoted to arguing and resolving
such a dispute.

Meaning of Legal Dispute

For the purpose of this book, there is a legal dispute when one party
complains of a violation of his right by another who, on the other hand,
denies such a violation. A legal dispute in this sense is akin to a cause of
action in a civil suit in which the defendant denies the claim against him. It is
this denial that tenders a legal dispute.
When a person renting an apartment allegedly could not pay the agreed
monthly rents yet refuses to leave his unit, a legal dispute arises. This consists
of: (a) the apartment owner’s claim that the tenant fails to pay the agreed
monthly rents and must leave his unit; and (b) the tenant’s denial of the
claim and insistence to retain the unit. You have in this case a right
protected by law, an alleged violation of such right, and a denial of the
allegation—a legal dispute.
The right claimed to have been violated must of course be a legal right
since courts will uphold and vindicate only those rights that are established or
recognized by law. For instance, a Filipino may claim that he deserves to be
allowed to travel to the United States. But, if the U.S. embassy denies him the
visa required for entry into that country, he cannot file a lawsuit to compel its
issuance since Philippine laws do not grant him that right.
Likewise, the dispute over the demand that Filipino rather than English be
made the primary medium of instruction in all levels of education is not a
legal dispute since it does not involve an actual violation of some right. The
controversy, although of public interest, will not to be resolved by litigation
but by legislative action.
What is the legal dispute when a person allegedly refuses to pay his debt?
The legal dispute lies in: (a) the creditor’s claim that the debtor unjustly
refuses to pay his debt under a promissory note that he issued in favor of
the creditor; and (b) the debtor’s denial of such a claim. Again, you have
here a right protected by law, an alleged violation of the right, and a denial of
the allegation.
In a criminal case, the legal dispute consists in the State’s claim that the
accused has violated its right to compel obedience to its laws and in the
latter’s denial of the claim during his arraignment. So what does the legal
dispute consists of when a person defrauds another by selling a fake Rolex
watch to him for the price of a genuine one? This consists of: (a) the State’s
charge that the accused defrauded the complainant by selling a fake
Rolex watch to him for the price of a genuine one; and (b) the accused’s
denial of the charge.

Its Significance in Legal Writing

Why is it important in legal writing that you are able to know and identify
the legal dispute involved in a case?
Since a legal dispute involves a violation of a right protected by law or
which violation the law punishes, nothing less than the resolution of such
dispute could properly end it. Precisely, we say that a legal dispute is at the
heart of every case subject of legal writing because it is like a tumor that
would not go away until it is excised. Consequently, if you fail to correctly
identify the legal dispute and address it, you would just be running around in
circles, contributing nothing to its final termination. That is how important it
is!

Legal Dispute and the Principal Issue

As a rule, the legal dispute, recast in the format of an issue, provides
the principal issue in every case. Take the earlier case of the tenant who
could not pay the agreed monthly rents yet refuses to leave his apartment
unit. We said that the legal dispute consists in: (a) the apartment owner’s
claim that the tenant fails to pay the agreed monthly rents and must leave his
unit; and (b) the tenant’s denial of the claim and insistence to retain the unit.
Put in the format of an issue, the principal issue is “whether or not the
tenant who fails to pay the monthly rents must leave the apartment
unit.”
Take also the case of the person who refuses to pay his debt. We said that
the legal dispute lies in: (a) the creditor’s claim that the debtor unjustly
refuses to pay his debt under a promissory note that he issued in favor of the
creditor; and (b) the debtor’s denial of such a claim. Rewritten in the format
of an issue, the principal issue is “whether or not the debtor unjustly
refuses to pay his debt under a promissory note that he issued in favor of
the creditor.”
In the criminal case discussed above, we said that the legal dispute consists
in: (a) the State’s charge that the accused defrauded the complainant by
selling a fake Rolex watch to him for the price of a genuine one; and (b) the
accused’s denial of the charge. Recast as an issue, the principal issue is
“whether or not the accused defrauded the complainant by selling a fake
Rolex watch to him for the price of a genuine one.”
What does the legal dispute consists of when a building official issues to
the owner an occupancy permit for a building with inadequate fire exits? It
consists of: (a) the complainant’s claim that respondent building official
issued to the owner an occupancy permit for a building with inadequate fire
exits in violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act 3019; and (b) the
respondent’s denial of that claim. Transformed into an issue, the principal
issue is “whether or not respondent building official issued to the owner
an occupancy permit covering a building that has inadequate fire exits in
violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act 3019.”

Importance of Principal Issue

Why is knowledge of the principal issue important to you? It is important
to you because your case will be decided for or against you based on that
issue. It is important because you judge the significance of every argument
that you want to use to persuade your reader by its relevance to the principal
issue. Any argument that does not touch base with the principal issue or
issues (there could be more than one principal issue involved in a case) would
be quite useless and a waste of time.
 3.

Stages of Writing

Legal writing, when methodically done, is much like a construction of a

building. You move in stages. You gather all the materials you need, sort
them out, cut them to size, and join them together according to a plan. Before
you end, you then give your building the finishing work it requires.

Two Stages of Legal Writing

Legal writing also moves in stages. It has two main stages:
The First Stage is Pre-work. Here, you are at the beginning of your
writing assignment and are looking at the facts and evidence of the case as
they are made available to you. If it is a new case, the facts might come from
interviews of the persons involved in the problem or from related documents
that require sorting. These materials would be absolutely raw. Quite often, the
dates when the important events took place are mixed up. On the other hand,
if it is a case that has undergone trial, you might be looking at the transcript
of the testimonies of witnesses and the documentary exhibits presented in the
case.
Pre-work is a process. Whatever your assignment might be, your pre-work
would be inadequate unless you go through at least five levels of efforts:
1. Establishing where the legal dispute lies in the case;
2. Discovering its relevant facts;
3. Knowing the laws or rules that apply to it;
4. Identifying the issue or issues that you would address; and
5. Roughing out the arguments that you would use.

The Second Stage is Write-up. Here, having all the ideas you need
concerning your legal writing assignment, your task is to put flesh, color, and
shape to them. You will now transform the sketches and outlines you
produced during pre-work into a full draft of the paper required of you––a
pleading, a legal opinion, a petition, a comment, a memorandum, a position
paper, or even a decision.
Editing and rewriting will complete the write-up stage.

Value of Pre-work
Most haphazardly finished legal writing can be traced to lack of pre-work
or to pre-work hastily done. The need for pre-work is true for all kinds of
presentations that are aimed to convince others to a certain point of view. A
successful salesman needs to have a complete knowledge and mastery of his
product, all its good points and bad. With this edge, he can then develop his
sales pitch or the line of arguments he could draw from, polish them to
perfection, and make a sale. In a real sense, legal writing is a sort of
presentation. The lawyer should be able to make a convincing presentation of
his case in the limited time that he is able to hold his reader’s attention. To
succeed in this, the lawyer needs pre-work.
Lack of time to do pre-work, a frequent excuse, cannot be a valid
justification for dispensing with one. The writer who settles for an opinion,
pleading, or position paper not based on pre-work does not care about the
comprehensiveness and convincing quality of his work. He just submits his
work to his client or to the court for the sake of meeting the deadline given to
him. He does not care about its result. This attitude, however, is the reason
behind many failed legal writings and careers. You do not want this.
 4.
Getting at the Facts of the Case

Almost always, legal writing stands on two legs: (1) the facts and (2) the
laws involved in the case. And pre-work always starts with getting the facts
right.

Facts of a Case
When you study the facts of a case, you should not leave them until you
have come to a complete understanding of what the case is about from every
angle. When you are able to examine the position of the opposite side just as
you have examined that of your client, you would be able to tell the latter that
you know more about his case than he does. You short-change your client
when you casually read the facts from your source materials without truly
understanding and absorbing their contents. Deep concentration and
absorption is required of every good preparation for a case.

Random Notes versus Summary

One way to study case materials is to make short random of the facts of the
case that you consider important as you go over them. This is a good practice.
But purely random notes do not give you the complete picture. Because they
are random, they are often uncorrelated and are, therefore, useful only for
work done in one sitting. When you set aside your work and return to it after
a long duration, your random notes would have lost their correct meaning and
you have to start all over again. You would never be able to use these
incomplete notes as a permanent catalogue of the facts that you want to go
back to repeatedly at various stages of the proceedings in a case.
What you need is systematically prepared notes that adequately capture the
entire factual terrain of the case, with the important points properly marked
out. Studies in some English colleges show that there is a better way than
taking random notes for absorbing complex or difficult texts or written
materials. It is summarizing. You can best understand and absorb written
materials when you summarize their contents. Your summary serves as a
detailed map in your hand, able to guide you in negotiating your way through
the dispute involved.
Summarizing to compress the information you need, forces you to search
your materials for what is important. It compels you to toss an item of fact
over in your mind, assess its importance and relevance to the issues in the
case, and decide whether to keep it in or throw it out of your summary. When
you come to an item of fact and ask yourself, “What is the significance of this
fact to this case?” you begin to wonder. Then, all your accumulated
knowledge and experience bear on that item of fact and, usually, your mind
produces the right answer.

Facts seen through the Issue

When handling a new case, whatever stage you may find it, you need to
go over the materials very quickly and determine preliminarily the
principal issue or issues involved in the case. That is your key to pre-work.
Only when you have an idea of what the principal issue is, could you make a
good job of extracting the relevant facts from your materials.
In a classroom experiment, the professor asked the students to do pre-work
by carefully reading the following facts about a case:

The Beers War

Atlas Brewery Company discovered that distributors of
San Manuel Brewery in Metro Manila had in their
warehouses hundreds of cases of empty beer bottles owned by
Atlas Brewery. The distributors of San Manuel beer
apparently bought the empty bottles from retailers to reduce
the volume of sales of Atlas beer in their areas. The San
Manuel beer distributors claimed, on the other hand, that
they merely retaliated against Atlas beer distributors who had
been buying and destroying the empty bottles of San Manuel
beer in their areas.
A law student, Fred Sanchez, complained that when he
 drank beer with friends one evening in June at a restaurant
near his school, he found a cockroach in the bottle of San
Manuel beer that he had drunk from. He vomited upon such
discovery and suffered anxiety over fear that he would get
sick. He got angry with the restaurant owner for serving the
beer and threw the bottle with the pest in it at him, causing
injury on the owner’s head. The restaurant owner blamed
San Manuel Brewery for the incident and sued it. San Manuel
Brewery, on the other hand, blamed Atlas Brewery and its
distributors for tampering with its products.
Fred Sanchez and his friends created a lot of noise about
poisoned San Manuel beer products and initiated a boycott of
those products. Their action found them friends from among
the Atlas Brewery distributors.
After the students read the above, they were asked to write in one sentence
a comprehensive summary of what the case is all about. They were to
complete the sentence: “The case is about…” Stop reading after this
paragraph for a moment and try to complete the sentence yourself without re-
reading the facts. “The case is about … . ”
The students gave a variety of answers but most of them gave the
equivalent of the following summaries:
1. The case is about the struggle between San Manuel
Brewery and Atlas Beer Company over the distribution of
their competing products.
2. The case is about how fierce competition in beer
distribution could be very ugly.
3. The case is about a law student’s crusade against unsafe
products that come out of the market.
4. The case is about tampering with bottled products and
the dangers it presents.
Actually, the facts above spoke of only one “case” ever having developed
among the parties involved. This is the lawsuit that the restaurant owner filed
against San Manuel Brewery for the injury he suffered in the hands of an
outraged customer whom he served with a pest-laden bottle of beer. Did you
get it right? Do not be discouraged if you did not. Very few students
perceived this detail because they did not know what was expected of them
when they read the article the first time.
The point in the exercise is that, not knowing what they are looking for,
different people would tend to get different impressions out of the same
material that they have read. In the exercise, it is only after reading the
material are the students informed that they are to state what the “case” is
about.
Just how do you make a complete summary from raw data? One way is to
take out the non-essential facts from your written materials like contracts,
deeds, letters, records, books, testimonies or sworn statements. Cross out
those non-essential facts, leaving only the essential ones on the page of each
document or paper. Consider this problem asked in a bar examination. The
examiner probably picked up the facts from the syllabus of the case and so
indiscriminately copied a lot of details that are not essential to the problem.
Section 10 of Ordinance No. 105 of Tagaytay City provides
that at least 5% of the total area of any memorial park
established within its jurisdiction shall be set aside for charity
burial of its pauper residents and that no permit to establish,
operate, and maintain a private memorial park shall be
granted without the applicant’s conformity or agreeing to
such condition. The City argues that it is within its powers to
pass said ordinance; that the ordinance is a valid exercise of
police power; and that the portion taken is for public use, the
same being intended for paupers pursuant to its duty to
provide for the health and safety of its inhabitants.
Discuss the constitutionality of said ordinance.
The challenge is to make a short summary of the above by crossing out the
non-essential facts. Surely, you would be quite reckless if you just wield a
pen and cross out every word from the text that you fancy as having of no use
to you. What you need is a more precise pruning knife. As already stated, that
pruning knife is nothing else but your understanding of the principal issue
that the case presents. Only when you know that issue or at least have a
preliminary idea of what it is, could you do a correct job of cutting away
useless data to get to the essential facts you need.
 Fortunately, in the above problem, the bar examiner himself states the
principal issue for you: he wants you to “discuss the constitutionality of the
ordinance,” i.e., “whether or not it violates the right that it seeks to
regulate—the right of the owner to his land.” Now, use this issue to prune
away the facts that are not relevant to it. Consider the first sentence of the
problem:
Section 10 of Ordinance No. 105 of Tagaytay City provides
that at least 5% of the total area of any memorial park
established within its jurisdiction shall be set aside for charity
burial of its pauper residents and that no permit to establish,
operate, and maintain a private memorial park shall be
granted without the applicant’s conformity or agreeing to
such condition.
Surely, the particular number of the ordinance involved (Ordinance No.
105), the particular number of the section of the ordinance (Section 10), or
the particular place where it was enacted (Tagaytay City) are not relevant to
the constitutionality of the ordinance. You will also note that some details of
the quoted problem are superfluous. For instance, if the lots taken were to be
“for charity burial,” it would be superfluous to say that it would benefit
“pauper residents.” Also, in the phrase “no permit to establish, operate, and
maintain a private memorial park,” the words “establish” and “maintain”
are superfluous because “to operate” assumes these two terms.
The above sentence needed 63 words to describe the facts of the problem.
By crossing out the unneeded facts, what remains could be summarized in
only 26 words, less than half the original number. Thus, rid of irrelevant
details, your summary should read:
Section 10 of Ordinance No. 105 of Tagaytay City provides
that at least 5% of the total area of any memorial park
established within its jurisdiction shall be set aside for charity
burial of its pauper residents and that no permit to establish,
operate, and maintain a private memorial park shall be
granted without the applicant’s conformity or agreeing to
such condition.
In practice, however, crossing out portions of the documents will damage
such documents and render them useless for other purposes. Quite often, you
need to preserve the documents in their original state. Your alternative is to
go over them, identify those facts that are essential to your understanding of
the issues in the case, and put those facts in your outline.
Section 10 of Ordinance No. 105 of Tagaytay City provides
that at least 5% of the total area of any memorial park
established within its jurisdiction shall be set aside for charity
burial of its pauper residents and that no permit to establish,
operate, and maintain a private memorial park shall be granted
without the applicant’s conformity or agreeing to such
condition.
Put together, the extracted facts should read like this:
The ordinance requires memorial parks to give away to the
poor 5% of their land area as a condition to being granted
permits to operate.
With the facts summarized in their barest essentials, it is now far easier for
you to see the problem in its simplest form. Do you agree? You will no
longer be distracted by unimportant and obtrusive facts. Making a summary
of the facts of the case you are tasked to write about will do the same for you.

Cluttered Facts
As you have seen, it is only when you know the principal issue or at least
have a preliminary idea of what it is about that you could do a correct job of
making a summary of the facts of your case. Consider the following
testimonies, some conflicting, given by witnesses in an actual rape case. The
names have, of course, been changed. To make the example simple for study,
the transcripts have been edited and the cross-examination by opposing
counsels dispensed with. Go over it once to enable you to get a sense of what
the issue or issues are between the parties.
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN)
October 8
(Abridged and edited for study)
COURT STAFF: (After swearing in the witness) State your
name and personal circumstances.
 WITNESS: I am Julia Torres, eighteen years old, single,
and a resident of Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas.
PROSECUTOR: With the Court’s permission. Do you
know Ronald Galang, the accused in this case?
A. Yes, sir. He is there (pointing to the accused).
Q. Why do you know him?
A. He raped me.
Q. Where did this happen?
A. It happened on the rice field near Mario’s house.
Q. How did Ronald rape you?
A. I struggled to get free but he pointed a knife at my side
and threatened to stab me if I called for help or persisted in
fighting back.
Q. So what did you do?
A. Out of fear, I gave in and he raped me.
Q. What did you do after Ronald raped you?
A. I kept the matter to myself for a while.
Q. Why?
A. Because I was afraid of the trouble that will happen if
my parents and brothers found out. They loved me so much.
Q. For how long did you keep the matter to yourself?
A. After two days of worrying and feeling bad, I finally told
my aunt about it and she in turn told my parents.
Q. What was the reaction of your parents?
A. They were quite furious and wanted to take the matter
into their own hands but cooler heads prevailed.
Q. So what did you do after that?
A. I went to the police to complain.
 Q. Is that all that you did?
A. I also submitted myself to medical examination.
Q. When did Ronald rape you?
A. He raped me on June 12 at 7 p.m.
Q. How did you meet Ronald on June 12?
A. I went to the house of Celia in our barrio to attend a
wedding party and I saw him there.
Q. Do you have any relationship with Ronald?
A. None. He was only my suitor.
Q. What were your feelings during the party?
A. I was in high spirit because I met a lot of friends and had
a good time.
Q. Do you recall any unusual thing that happened at that
wedding party?
A. Someone exploded firecrackers nearby and this caused a
scare for a while.
Q. You said that you saw your suitor, Ronald, at the party.
Did you have occasion to talk to each other?
A. He wanted to talk to me but I ignored him because I
disliked him for a suitor. In fact, I stayed away from him.
Q. What happened after you ignored him?
A. The married couple danced after supper and people
joined in.
Q. What did you do after the dancing?
A. At 11 p.m. I took leave to go and started to walk home
alone in the moonlight.
Q. Did anything unusual happen during your walk home?
A. When I was about fifty meters from Mario’s house,
Ronald came behind me and requested that he walk me home.
 Q. What was your reaction to him?
A. I really did not like him. I declined and doubled my
steps.
Q. So what happened after you walked faster?
A. Ronald caught my arm and wrestled me to the ground?
Q. What kind was the ground over there? A. It was rough
ground and dry.
Q. What did Ronald do while your were down on the
ground?
A. He covered my mouth with a hand so I could not shout.
He pointed a knife at me and forced me to yield to him.
Q. Did it not bother you that you left the wedding party
alone by yourself?
A. No, sir. Walking alone did not bother me because I knew
everyone in the barrio.
Q. What route did you take going home?
A. I took a short cut across Mario’s farm, in the direction
of our house.
Q. Can you describe the path that you took?
A. The path was quite uneven and difficult.
Q. How was it?
A. I was used to it and I managed very well.
PROSECUTOR: That is all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN)
October 12
(Abridged and edited for study)
COURT STAFF: (After swearing in the witness) State your
name and personal circumstances.
WITNESS: I am Dr. Amado Ampil, of legal age, married,
and a medical examiner for the Province of Batangas, and a
resident of Batangas City.
PROSECUTOR: Have you ever examined a woman by the
name of Julia Torres?
A. Yes, I examined Julia Torres after she complained to the
Lian police that she had been raped. It took her two days
before reporting the incident.
Q. Could you describe her physical built?
A. She was of small built, 4 feet 11 inches in height, and of
fair complexion.
Q. What was your finding[s] after conducting a medical
examination of her?
A. I found after examining her body that she suffered from
laceration of the cervix posterior portion and laceration of the
vaginal canal posterior portion. The lacerations are about two
days old.
Q. Did you find any other injuries on her body?
A. None, sir.
Q. Did you prepare a medical report showing such finding?
A. Yes, sir. This is my report. (Marked as Exhibit A.)
PROSECUTOR: That will be all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN)
October 16
(Abridged and edited for study)
COURT STAFF: (After swearing in the witness) State your
name and personal circumstances.
 WITNESS: I am Ronald Galang, twenty years old, single,
and a resident of Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: With the Court’s permission. Do
you know the complainant in this case, Ms. Julia Torres?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. She testified that you raped her, what can you say about
that?
A. I did not rape Julia.
Q. But did you have sexual relation with her on the evening
of June 12?
A. Yes, sir. But she freely agreed to make love with me that
night of the wedding party at Celia’s house.
Q. The medical examiner testified that she found
lacerations on Julia’s vaginal canal when he examined her
two days later. What can you say about that?
A. That must be true. I discovered that evening that Julia
was a virgin because she bled. It worried me but she said that
it was not too painful.
Q. Did you communicate with each other after that evening
of June 12?
A. Julia called for me the following day, insisting that I
marry her because she was afraid she might have become
pregnant.
Q. What was your reply to her?
A. Because I had to look after my parents yet, I declined,
asking her to wait a while.
Q. And what was her reaction to that?
A. Julia became angry and threatened to complain to her
parents that I raped her.
Q. What was your reaction to what she said?
 A. I still refused to marry her right away.
Q. So what did she do?
A. She accused me of raping her.
Q. What relation, if any did you have with Julia about the
time of the alleged rape?
A. Julia and I had been sweethearts for over two months
before June 12.
Q. How did you come to meet each other at that wedding in
Celia’s house?
A. On that evening we met by prior agreement at Celia’s
house right in our barrio.
Q. What happened when you met each other at that
wedding party?
A. Things started out well and I had some fun meeting my
friends. But, because of their jokes that I had some other girl,
Julia became angry and refused to talk to me.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I left to brood outside.
Q. How long did you stay outside?
A. Not too long. I returned to the party an hour later after a
friend called me inside.
Q. What did you do when the wedding party ended?
A. When the party ended, I walked alongside Julia and
tried to explain the jokes played by my friends.
Q. How did she react to your explanation?
A. She did not want to believe me at first. After awhile, I
convinced her to sit with me on a piece of log near the house
of Mario.
Q. What happened after you sat on that log?
 A. The evening was romantic and we eventually reconciled.
Q. What happened after you reconciled?
A. We kissed and embraced and, forgetting ourselves, we
made love on the grass.
Q. What did you do after you made love to Julia?
A. I walked with her up to about twenty meters of her
house.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: That is all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN)
October 25
(Abridged and edited for study)

COURT STAFF: (After swearing in the witness) State your

name and personal circumstances.
WITNESS: I am Mario Perez, forty-five years old, married,
farmer, and a resident of Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: With the court’s permission. Do
you remember where you were on the evening of June 12?
A. I remember that I was home that evening of June 12.
Q. Why do you remember that evening?
A. I was told that a rape was committed on my farm that
evening and it so happened that my two-year old daughter
was then running a fever.
Q. Is it possible you went to bed early that evening?
A. I remember that I slept late because I had to watch our
sick daughter while my wife took her turn to rest.
Q. Was the farm visible that night?
 A. The night was not so dark because the moon shone
brightly in the sky.
Q. What time did you go to bed after watching your sick
daughter?
A. I took my turn to sleep after midnight.
Q. During the time you were looking after your daughter,
do you remember hearing the outcry of a woman from
somewhere outside your house?
A. No. I heard no outcry from outside my house.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: That is all.
Obviously, the above testimonies contain much that is not connected to the
rape issue. They are filled with details that usually accompany raw
storytelling. When making a summary of them, whole sentences can go and
these would not affect the essence of the story.

Relevant Facts Extracted

Can you sort out the testimonies above and make a short summary of the
facts that really matter to the case? This is not difficult, as you have earlier
seen. Just remember the lesson you learned. First, try to identify the legal
dispute involved in the above case. Obviously, the legal dispute consists in:
(a) the government’s charge that Ronald raped Julia; and (b) the latter’s
denial of the charge. Second, rewrite the legal dispute in the format of an
issue to produce your principal issue then put down this issue in bold print,
and place it right before you as you do your summarizing. Using this issue as
guide, you can then peel away from the narrations all the facts that are not
connected to such issue. It will hold you to your aim.
After rewriting your principal issue, it should read:
WHETHER OR NOT RONALD RAPED JULIA.
See how these lessons are applied to the testimony of Julia, reproduced
below. The facts relevant to the issue and essential to the outline have been
put in bold. The explanations for doing away with the non-essential facts
have been bracketed and [italicized.]
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN)
October 8
(Abridged and edited for study)
COURT STAFF: (After swearing in the witness) State your
name and personal circumstances. [Note: Obviously, you do not
need to put in your outline this statement about the oath and the
request made to the witness to state her personal circumstances.
They do not yield any fact of the case.]
WITNESS: I am Julia Torres, eighteen years old, single, and
a resident of Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas. [Note: The rape
event tells a story. To make sense, every story must say who are
involved, what happened, when it happened, where it happened,
how it happened, and possibly why it happened. These
descriptions of Julia Torres, the victim, are essential to
appreciating her humanity and put the legal dispute into its
proper context. Consequently you need them in your outline.]
PROSECUTOR: With the Court’s permission. Do you know
Ronald Galang, the accused in this case?
A. Yes, sir. [Note: When the witness says, “yes,” to a question,
the facts contained in the question, which she affirms with her
“yes” answer are implicitly incorporated into the answer. If those
facts are relevant, they should go into your outline.] He is there
(pointing to the accused).
Q. Why do you know him?
A. He raped me. [Note: Surely relevant.]
Q. Where did this happen?
A. It happened on the rice field near Mario’s house. [Note:
This answers the question “where?”]
Q. How did Ronald rape you?
A. I struggled to get free but he pointed a knife at my side
and threatened to stab me if I called for help or persisted in
fighting back. [Note: Shows how it was committed.]
Q. So what did you do?
 A. Out of fear, I gave in [Note: Is this relevant to the issue?
Of course, for it shows why the rape succeeded.] and he raped me.
[Note: This is just a repeat of a previous statement.]
Q. What did you do after Ronald raped you?
A. I kept the matter to myself for a while. [Note: Is this
relevant? Yes. Ordinarily, the victim of a grave wrongdoing
would complain about it to someone. Julia’s silence could affect
the credibility of her claim.]
Q. Why?
A. Because I was afraid of the trouble that will happen if
my parents and brothers found out. [Note: Since this is Julia’s
justification for incurring delay in reporting the crime, it should
be relevant like the preceding answer.] They loved me so much.
[Note: That her parents and brothers loved her so much would
have no bearing on the issue of whether or not Ronald raped her.]
Q. For how long did you keep the matter to yourself?
A. After two days of worrying and feeling bad, I finally told
my aunt about it and she in turn told my parents. [Note: Her
reason for changing her mind and eventually reporting the matter
should also be considered relevant in judging her credibility.]
Q. What was the reaction of your parents?
A. They were quite furious and wanted to take the matter into
their own hands but cooler heads prevailed. [Note: The reaction is
limited to her parents and brothers; it is irrelevant to the rape
issue.]
Q. So what did you do after that?
A. I went to the police to complain. [Note: Is this relevant?
Yes. Complaining to the police about the commission of a crime
lends credence to the claim that it took place.]
Q. Is that all that you did?
A. I also submitted myself to medical examination. [Note:
Same reason as the above.]
 Q. When did Ronald rape you?
A. He raped me on June 12 at 7 p.m. [Note: States the time.]
Q. How did you meet Ronald on June 12?
A. I went to the house of Celia in our barrio to attend a
wedding party and I saw him there. [Note: This fact is essential
to an understanding of the antecedents of the alleged crime.]
Q. Do you have any relationship with Ronald?
A. None. He was only my suitor. [Note: Some say that this is
irrelevant since it is possible for Ronald to rape Julia whatever be
their relationship. Others think, however, that this is important
since it shows that Ronald was attracted to Julia.]
Q. What were your feelings during the party?
A. I was in high spirit because I met a lot of friends and had a
good time. [Note: Even if true, it does not help you know whether
or not Ronald raped Julia.]
Q. Do you recall any unusual thing that happened at that
wedding party?
A. Someone exploded firecrackers nearby and this caused a
scare for a while. [Note: Same as preceding observation.
Irrelevant.]
Q. You said that you saw your suitor, Ronald, at the party. Did
you have occasion to talk to each other?
A. He wanted to talk to me but I ignored him because I
disliked him for a suitor. In fact, I stayed away from him.
[Note: This is relevant because Julia’s attitude towards Ronald, if
true, would render it unlikely that she would let him escort her
home from the wedding party or have consented sex with him.]
Q. What happened after you ignored him?
A. The married couple danced after supper and people joined
in. [Note: This fact has no bearing at all to the rape case.]
Q. What did you do after the dancing?
 A. At 11 p.m. I took leave to go and started to walk home
alone in the moonlight. [Note: This is relevant to the issue
because it shows the circumstances immediately preceding the
alleged rape.]
Q. Did anything unusual happen during your walk home?
A. When I was about fifty meters from Mario’s house,
Ronald came from behind me and requested that he walk me
home.
Q. What was your reaction to him? [Note: Same observation as
the preceding answer.]
A. I really did not like him. [Note: This is redundant, a
repetition of a previous statement.] I declined and doubled my
steps. [Note: This also sets the stage for the rape event.]
Q. So what happened after you walked faster?
A. Ronald caught my arm and wrestled me to the ground?
[Note: Use of force is an element of the rape.]
Q. What kind was the ground over there?
A. It was rough ground and dry. [Note: This could be
relevant if it somehow sheds light on the issue of whether or not
the rape took place.]
Q. What did Ronald do while you were down on the ground?
A. He covered my mouth with a hand so I could not shout.
He pointed a knife at me and forced me to yield to him. [Note:
This is no doubt relevant since it tends to show that Ronald raped
Julia.]
Q. Did it not bother you that you left the wedding party alone
by yourself?
A. No, sir. Walking alone did not bother me because I knew
everyone in the barrio. [Note: This is relevant to counter the
claim that, being a woman, it was quite unlikely for her to be
walking home alone.]
 Q. What route did you take going home?
A. I took a short cut across Mario’s farm, in the direction
of our house. [Note: This fact is needed to link the other relevant
facts together.]
Q. Can you describe the path that you took?
A. The path was quite uneven and difficult to ply. [Note: This
is probably irrelevant since it neither helps resolve the issue of
whether or not the rape took place nor does it help tie the facts
together.]
Q. How was it?
A. I was used to it and I managed very well. [Note: Same
observation as above.]
PROSECUTOR: That is all.

One thing wonderful about analyzing the facts to sort out the relevant from
the irrelevant is that such a process makes you see the component parts of the
problem and their relationships. And this usually reveals to you some of the
strengths and weaknesses of the testimonies and the documents, the keys to
developing the arguments that you would eventually use when you start
writing your paper. For example, in analyzing whether Julia’s claim that she
walked home alone is relevant or not, one insight you got is that what she did
was rather unusual for a woman in the barrio to do. This could put a cloud on
her credibility.
Follow the same procedure in sorting out the testimonies of the medical
examiner, Ronald Galang and Mario Perez.

Facts Set in Sequence

Equally important to getting rid of irrelevant matters is putting the events
in the order of their occurrence. When the sequence of the events is in
disarray, with subsequent events told ahead of preceding ones or with
frequent flashbacks to the past as the story unfolds, you are likely to get
confused. You will be looking at items of facts that are out of context or
detached from their surrounding circumstances.
 Take the testimony of Julia after the irrelevant facts have been thrown out.
It is far from being narrated in order of time. Thus––

–– Julia Torres is eighteen years old, single, and a resident

of Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas.
–– She knows Ronald Galang, the accused.
–– He raped her on the ricefield near Mario’s house.
[Julia’s testimony begins with the consummation of the rape.]
–– She struggled to get free but he pointed a knife at her
side and threatened to stab her if she called for help or
persisted in fighting back. [She then backtracks a little to
narrate the struggle that preceded the sexual act.]
–– Out of fear, she gave in. [Here, Julia returns to the
consummation of the rape. In the next line, she moves forward
again.]
–– After the rape, she kept the matter to herself because she
was afraid of the trouble that will happen if her parents and
brothers found out.
–– After two days of worrying and feeling bad, she finally
told her aunt about it and the latter in turn told her parents.
–– She went to the police to complain.
–– She submitted herself to medical examination.
–– He raped her on June 12 at 7 p.m. [Julia’s story flashes
back to the moment of the rape.]
–– She went to the house of Celia in our barrio to attend a
wedding party and she saw him there. [It is only here that Julia
tells how her story begins.]
–– Ronald was only her suitor.
–– He wanted to talk to her but she ignored him because
she disliked him for a suitor. In fact, she stayed away from
him.
 –– At 11 p.m. she took leave to go and started to walk home
alone in the moonlight.
–– When she was about fifty meters from Mario’s house,
Ronald came behind her and requested that he walk her
home.
–– She declined and doubled her steps.
–– Ronald caught her arm and wrestled her on rough and
dry ground.
–– He covered her mouth with a hand so she could not
shout. He pointed a knife at her and forced her to yield to
him.
–– Walking alone did not bother her because she knew
everyone in the barrio.
–– She took a short cut across Mario’s farm, in the
direction of her house. [Julia ends her story at its middle part,
just before Ronald interferes with her journey home and rapes
her.]

If in writing your paper on the case, you choose to stick by the order in
which Julia tells her story, you could confuse your reader. Yet, it is not
difficult to sort out the facts and put them in the order of their occurrence.
Just spot the point where Julia’s story logically begins, here, her encounter
with Ronald at the wedding party, then, arrange after it the other events in the
order of their occurrence until you reach the end of her story, her submission
to medical examination.
Are you done? When you are done sorting out the facts in Julia’s
testimony, putting them in order, and drawing up your short summary, it
might look like the one below. The non-essentials have been removed to
reveal the essentials. Further, the order of the events has been straightened
out to show the correct sequence. The narration has been rewritten to make
the outline a third person narrative.

Julia Torres, eighteen years of age, single, said that she

 went to the house of Celia at Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas,
on June 12 at 7 p.m. to attend a wedding party. She saw her
suitor, Ronald Galang, but ignored him since she disliked
him.
At 11 p.m. Julia took leave to go home alone. This did not
bother her because she knew everyone in the barrio. She took
a short cut across Mario Perez’s farm. About fifty meters
from the latter’s house, Ronald came behind her and asked
that he walk her home. She declined but Ronald caught her
arm and wrestled her on the rough ground, covering her
mouth so she could not shout.
Julia struggled to get free but Ronald pointed a knife at her
side and threatened to stab her. Out of fear, she gave in and
he ravished her.
After the rape, Julia kept the matter to herself for fear of
trouble if her parents and brothers found out. But, she finally
told her aunt. They went to the police and she submitted to
medical examination.
What benefits do you derive from arranging the facts in proper order or
sequence? The benefits are as follows:
1. The facts are easier to understand when put in the order of time. The
reason is simple: they follow a natural order or flow. Actual human
experience occurs in the order of time where one event follows another with
the ticking of the hour. A story that jumps ahead, goes back to a previous
event, and then returns to resume its advance where it temporarily dropped
off is unnatural. It can be quite confusing. The human mind is not at ease
with such a manner of storytelling.
2. When facts are arranged in the proper order, you would clearly see how
each fact relates to or connects with others. Each fact acquires deeper
significance when viewed along with related facts. That Ronald sat on a piece
of log with Julia would be meaningless if seen in isolation. Before they sat on
the log, she did not want to talk to him at all. After sitting alongside each
other on the log, they had a quick romantic reconciliation. Their sitting on the
log acquires significance.
3. When the factual versions of either side are put in order and matched,
you would also be able to see clearly the areas where the respective versions
agree and disagree. This in turn will furnish you with a balanced appreciation
of each opposing claim.
4. Facts, properly arranged, prepare you for the work of writing up the
facts of the case in your pleading or memorandum.
Apart from the benefits already mentioned above, making a summary of
your materials and arranging these in the proper sequence enable you to
create a compact index to the facts of the case, including the testimonies and
the documents you work on. Lawyers usually handle a hundred cases at a
time. With your compact summary, you do not have to re-read your
voluminous materials each time you want to be reminded of the important
details of the case. Your summary will be your map in guiding you
throughout the course of trial of the case and during appeal.

Writing Exercises

1. For exercise, sort out the rest of the testimonies in the rape case, make a
summary of the relevant facts, and arrange them in order.
2. You have seen how little data are important to a case when the facts
have been sorted out for relevance and order. Consider the following
sample case:

The Case of a Child and a Neighbor’s Dog

Peter Banag, the father of a child who was attacked by a
neighbor’s dog, has come to consult you about the possibility of
his bringing a lawsuit against Arthur Sison, a neighbor. Peter
brought along Fred Puzon to the interview. Fred witnessed what
happened. The following is your interview with him:

Interview with Mr. Fred Puzon,

accompanied by client, Mr.
Peter Banag. Sept. 21
Q. Fred, how old are you?
A. I am twenty-one, Attorney.
 Q. What do you do for a living?
A. I work with the government.
Q. Where do you live?
A. I live at 24 Annapolis St., Cubao, Quezon City.
Q. Did you see the dog attack Mr. Banag’s daughter?
A. Yes, sir. I saw it bite Mary’s leg and even her arms as
she fell to the ground.
Q. Do you know who owned that dog?
A. Yes, sir, the dog belonged to Arthur Sison.
Q. What did you do when you saw the dog attack Mary?
A. I immediately ran to help her but, unfortunately, I
tripped on the gutter and fell on my hands and knees.
Q. So what happened?
A. I recovered quickly, moved on, and kicked the dog away.
I then stood by to protect Mary from further attacks.
Q. What happened to the dog?
A. The dog kept on barking and looked as if it would attack
us.
Q. Did it attack you?
A. No because Arthur came out of his house and sent his
dog into his yard.
Q. How about Mary, what happened to her?
A. Arthur picked her up, called a tricycle, and brought her
to a nearby clinic for treatment.
Q. And you, what did you do?
A. My friend then arrived and we left for the mall.
Q. Did you know how old Mary was at that time?
A. I found out that he was about six years old.
 Q. How did you get to know Arthur?
A. We are neighbors. He lives at 12 Annapolis Street, the
same street where I lived.
Q. Do you know why Mary was near Arthur’s house?
A. She went there to buy ice-candies. Arthur had been
selling ice-candies at his house for sometime.
Q. How did you know that?
A. I myself used to buy ice-candies from him especially
during summer.
Q. When did the incident involving Mary happen?
A. It happened on September 12 at about 3 p.m.
Q. What were you doing at that time?
A. I was waiting on Annapolis Street for my friend Henry
Uy to come and pick me up so we could go to the mall.
Q. Do you remember what day of the week it was?
A. It was a Saturday afternoon.
Q. What did you see Mary doing from where you stood?
A. I saw Mary approach Arthur’s gate and knock on it. But
no one answered.
Q. So what did she do?
A. Still she kept on knocking softly at the gate.
Q. What happened next?
A. A young girl of her age passed by and Mary waived at
her.
Q. So what happened next?
A. Arthur’s dog came out to the yard. As Mary tested the
gate by pushing it, the gate yielded and the dog jumped out.
Q. What did Mary do?
 A. She held the gate open and called in saying that she
wanted to buy ice-candy. “Pagbilan nga po ng ice-candy,” she
said.
Q. So what happened?
A. That was the time I saw the dog go after her. It attacked
her from behind as she turned and ran to leave.
Q. What was your reaction to what you saw?
A. I was shocked for a moment.

You asked Peter why he came to consult with you and he said that he
asked Arthur to pay her daughter P20,000.00 in damages for what she
suffered but all he got was a letter from him. He gave you the following
letter.

Mr. Peter Banag

16 Annapolis St.,
Cubao, Quezon City
Dear Mr. Banag:
I regret that I could not grant your demand to pay you
P20,000.00 for the injuries that your daughter suffered on
September 12 when she came to my house at 12 Annapolis
Street, Cubao, Quezon City. I was not at fault.
I was napping in my house on the afternoon your daughter
came to our gate. I was awakened when I heard some
commotion outside. I thought for a while that people were
quarreling. But I heard someone shouting that my dog had
attacked a child. I immediately got up and ran out. As I did, I
saw Fred Puzon, our neighbor, trying to stop my dog,
Prancer, from attacking your daughter, Mary, who lay on the
ground just outside the gate. Other neighbors had started to
come out to see what was happening.
To augment the income of my family, I engaged in the
 business of selling ice-candies at my house beginning in
March of last year. My sale had been brisk especially during
the summer days. I always sold my ice-candies at the gate
when people came to buy. That gate had an automatic closer.
But at times, I left it unlocked from the inside because my
children often went in and out. I had a dog in my house,
Prancer, but my gate carried a written warning about the
presence of that dog. Until that afternoon of September 12,
Prancer had not attacked any one.
I immediately stepped out into the street as soon as I can
and sent Prancer inside. I was really surprised that you had
allowed your daughter to leave the house without an escort. I
myself took care that my young children did not go out alone.
At any rate, I called a tricycle and brought Mary to a
medical clinic nearby for treatment of her wounds and for an
injection. Later, her mother followed us to the clinic and she
comforted her daughter. I paid the medical bill.
I am sorry but I do not believe that I should be liable to
your daughter for damages.

Very truly yours,

Arthur Sison

Before you could give Mr. Banag your legal opinion on his case, you need
to do pre-work. Sort out the relevant facts from the irrelevant and put the
relevant facts in order. As in the rape case, try provisionally to identify the
legal dispute and get a sense of the principal issue that divides your client,
Peter, and his neighbor, Arthur. Have a clear understanding of that issue and
use it to guide you in extracting the useful facts of the case. Then make a
short summary of the facts from your client’s point of view as well as from
that of Arthur. Put your work on paper.