5.
Knowing the Applicable Law or Rule
After working on the testimonies and documents in your case, you would
have produced an outline of the facts that are relevant to the legal dispute that
it presents. Now you are ready to make a search for those specific laws or
rules that, applied to the facts, will either help or burden you in prosecuting
or defending your side of the dispute.
Sources of Law or Rule
There are two general sources of laws and rules:
Statute law: This consists of laws and rules enacted by duly constituted
rule-making authorities like Congress (Republic Acts and Batas Pambansa),
the President (Presidential Decrees and Executive Orders), the Supreme
Court (Rules of Court), local government councils (city or municipal
ordinances), and administrative regulatory agencies (implementing rules and
regulations).
Case law: This consists of decisions of courts and persons or agencies
performing judicial functions. These decisions interpret and apply statute law
to specific situations. The rulings in these cases become legal precedents that,
when invariably affirmed and used, become part of the law itself.
But just how do you locate the right law and legal precedents? Two steps
are suggested:
First. Identify the general nature of the legal dispute involved. In the case
between Julia and Ronald, the legal dispute consists in the government’s
allegation that Ronald had sex with Julia, employing force and intimidation
in violation of law, and in Ronald’s denial of the charge. The case, therefore,
concerns a crime that involves chastity. This should lead you to the statute
law on rape, namely, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. It reads:
Article 266-A. Rape; when and how committed. –– Rape is
committed —
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force or intimidation.
xxx xxx xxx
Second. Having become familiar with the facts of your case, search for
legal precedents that have more or less parallel facts. Nothing is new in this
world. You will discover that there is hardly any new case that would have no
parallel or similarity to a previous case that a court or quasi-judicial body has
once decided. Find the rulings in those parallel case, whether for or against
your side of the dispute, and you will have more confidence in charting the
course of your arguments. Usually, it is the diligent that succeeds in tunneling
the whole depth of case law to extract the gold nuggets he needs to prevail in
his assigned case. Seize that advantage.
In rape cases, both the prosecution and the accused will find Philippine
jurisprudence rich in judicial precedents that will help their case. Consider the
following:
For the Prosecution
In the review of rape cases, jurisprudence has laid down the
following guiding principles: a) an accusation in rape can be
made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to
prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove the charge; b) considering that, in the
nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the
crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be
scrutinized with great caution; and c) the evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence
for the defense. (People v. Sta. Ana, G.R. 115657, June 26,
1998.)
The failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is
not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge. (People v.
Casil, 241 SCRA 285; People v. Montefalcon, G.R. 111944,
April 25, 1995.)
The absence of physical injury does not negate the
commission of rape. (People v. Gapasan, 243 SCRA 53.)
It would be improbable for a barrio girl of tender age and
definitely inexperienced in sexual matters to fabricate a
charge for no reason at all that will put herself and her family
in a very uncompromising situation, which could even invite
reprisal. (People v. Vitor, 245 SCRA 392.)
Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make
voluntary the rape victim’s submission to the criminal act of
the accused. (People v. Marabillas, 303 SCRA 352.)
Threatening the victim with a knife, a deadly weapon, is
sufficient to cow the victim and it constitutes an element of
rape. (People v. Alquizalas, 305 SCRA 367.)
For the Defense
Although the “sweetheart theory” has not gained favor
with the courts, such is not always the case if the hard fact is
that the accused and the supposed victim are, in truth,
intimately related except that, as is usual in most cases, either
the relationship is illicit or the victim’s parents are against it.
(People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676.)
In rape cases, the claim of the complainant of having been
threatened appears to be a common expedient of face-saving
subterfuge. (People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676.)
Courts will take judicial notice of the fact that in the rural
areas, young ladies are strictly required to act with
circumspection and prudence and great caution is observed so
that their reputation will remain intact. (People v. Godoy, 250
SCRA 676.)
In rape cases, the testimony of the offended party must not
be accepted with credulity. (People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA 676.)
As to be reasonably expected, a ravished woman would
instinctively call for help or at least flee her lecherous captor
to safer ground when opportunity present itself. (People v.
Sinatao, 249 SCRA 554.)
It is strange that even as complainant asserts sexual abuse
through violence and intimidation, she did not offer any
resistance when assaulted, an unlikely impulse for a woman
confronted with such an affront to her honor, and it is odd
that her supposed rape appears to be punctiliously made.
(People v. Sinatao, 249 SCRA 554.)
Apart from above sources of laws and rules, you have rules that derive
from the wisdom of common experience. These are especially useful in
resolving factual issues. Our jurisprudence is rich in these. For example:
Errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be
expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details
of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape. (People
v. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192.)
Fear has its bizarre way of rendering people immobile even
in life-and-death situations. (People v. Realin, 301 SCRA 495.)
Even the most trustful witnesses can sometimes make
mistakes but such innocent lapses do not necessarily affect
their credibility. (People v. Reduca, 301 SCRA 516.)
Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the
mouth of a credible witness but it must also be credible in
itself, such that common experience and observation of
mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the
circumstances. (People v. Perucho, 305 SCRA 770; People v.
Lagmay, 306 SCRA 157.)
Inconsistency concerning a minor matter does not affect the
credibility of complainant’s testimony. (People v. Empante,
306 SCRA 250.)
Wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in
proper situation, be considered sufficient illumination,
making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on that
ground unmeritorious. (People v. Adoviso, 309 SCRA 1.)
The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness
is whether or not such is in conformity with human
knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind.
(People v. Dela Cruz, 313 SCRA 189.)
Match the applicable laws or rules with the relevant facts of your case and
you are ready to work on your arguments. Get a good book in legal
bibliography and learn how to search for the statutes and judicial precedents
that you need. These topics are not embraced in this book.
Facts Reexamined
Having discovered the laws or rules that apply to your case, you should
now be in a better position to review your summary of the facts and add to it
the other relevant facts that you may have omitted. You could also subtract
from your summary those facts that now appear irrelevant to the applicable
laws or rules and precedents that you have discovered.
Writing Exercises
1. Go back to the case that Peter Banag consulted you with, namely, the
dog’s attack of her little daughter. Presumably, you did your pre-work,
sorted out the relevant from the irrelevant facts, and put your facts in
order. Consequently, you must already have on paper an outline of the
facts that you abstracted from your interview with Fred Puzon and from
Arthur Sison’s letter to your client. Based on the issues and the facts,
check out and copy the laws or the rules that should properly govern
them.
2. Check out too those parallel cases that the Supreme Court has previously
decided. See if the rulings and doctrines established in these cases could
be cited against you or to your advantage. Put them all on paper as part
of your pre-work.