GUIDELINES IN WRITING THE CASE DIGESTS A. Tickler ‘This refers to the topic of the case or a quick guide to the doctrine of the case. Use phrases only, not sentences. B. Header Case Title Case Number, Date Ponente C. Case Doctrine + It is a brief statement of the applicable law or rule upon which the ruling is based. + It is usually found in the Ruling part of the Case Digest. + It serves as an immediate reference or guide. + The words used should be in the original form; words used by the Supreme Court. + Rephrasing or substituting the same with one’s own words should be avoided. D. Facts . Begin with a statement of the “characters” i.e. the parties involved. * Names and personal circumstances - it is sufficient to state the “characters” and their personal circumstances in the first couple of sentences of the statement of facts. Please, indicate only those personal circumstances relevant to the issue. For example, residence need not be stated unless venue is the issue or some other related issue. 2. Statement of the case What stage in the proceedings is the case in? Is it an original action? Is it an appeal? Is it a petition for certiorari? Is it a motion for reconsideration? Ete. + Write this in two or three SHORT sentences ONLY. 3. Statement of the facts * Write ONLY the facts RELEVANT to the issue ie. tending to prove (or disprove) the matter required to be proved. Remember that the bar examinees may be given a set of facts lifted from the cases, so eliminate all irrelevant facts.« There is no limit to the number of sentences for the facts, but if the statement of the facts exceeds half a page and there is only one issue to be addressed, you are probably doing something wrong. + Dates and time - write ONLY if relevant to the issue. For example, dates can be relevant if the issue is prescription, or the time if the issue is if the crime was committed at nighttime. Places/Addresses — same rule. Include only if relevant. State the allegations and defenses of the parties E. Issue The issue can either be an open-ended or a close-ended question Instead of using “whether or not”, use close-ended questions. For example, instead of saying “Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder”, say “Is the accused guilty of murder?” * The issue must be clear, complete and concise. Instead of saying ‘Is the accused guilty of the crime charged”, say “Is the accused guilty of murder?” + Make sure that the issue is not just an obiter dictum. Ifit is, state so. An obiter dictum is a ‘may masabi lang” of the Supreme Court. It is not the main issue or is not an issue relevant to the resolution of the main issue. * The issue must pertain to a matter contained in the particular subject you are writing the digest for. If you encounter an issue not covered by your subject, ignore it. It’s not your job to digest that part of the case. However, kindly notify the subject chair of that other subject. F. Ruling 1. Quick answer to the issue/Ruling of the court ‘+ Answer yes or no if the issue is a close-ended question. If open-ended, address the issue accordingly. This should ideally only be stated in not more than two sentences. y Applicable law/doctrine/rule/principle ‘+ State the law or doctrine first before applying the facts to the case. * Cite the provision of law /jurisprudence used by the court in deciding the case, if applicable. s Application of law/doctrine/rule/principle to the facts + Begin with another paragraph. 4. Conclusion + Restate the quick answer. * Use concluding words like “Hence” or “Therefore”.FACTS WHICH MUST BE SHOWN TO PROVE RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE Edwin Tabao y Perez v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 187246, July 20, 2011 Brion, J.: DOCTRINE: In order for conviction to be decreed for reckless imprudence, the following must be proven: (1) the material damage suffered by the victim, (2) the failure in precaution on the part of the accused, and (3) the direct link between material damage and failure in precaution must be established beyond reasonable doubt. FACTS: The petitioner Edwin Tabao was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, together with one Leonardo Mendez, for the killing of Rochelle Lanete. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Tabao and Mendez guilty of the crime charged. The petitioner Tabao filed a petition for review on certiorari to the ‘Supreme Court which was denied, hence, this motion for reconsideration. ‘The facts show that the petitioner Tabao was driving his car towards Nagtahan when it suddenly ramped on an island divider, bumping Rochelle Lanete who was crossing the street. As a result of the impact, Rochelle was thrown into the middle of the road on her back. One of the prosecution witnesses, Victor Soriano saw the incident in its entirety. Victor positively identified the petitioner as the person who drove the car that ramped on an island divider, and hit Rochelle. Thereafter, Mendez’ speeding blue Toyota Corona car ran over Rochelle’s body. Bystanders followed Mendez’ car until it stopped near the Nagtahan Flyover. When Mendez’ car stopped, a newspaper boy named Francisco Cielo went inside Mendez’ car, sat beside him, got his driver's license, and ordered him to move the car backwards. Mendez followed his order. Cielo went out of the car and approached the sprawled body of Rochelle; he and the petitioner brought Rochelle’s body inside Mendez’ car. ‘The three of them (the petitioner Tabao, Cielo and Mendez) brought Rochelle to the UST Hospital, where she died more than two weeks later due to septicemia secondary to traumatic injuries. As to the location of the victim's injuries vis-a-vis the position of the petitioner’s vehicle, Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr., the attending physician, testified that the victim suffered multiple injuries "compatible and consistent with a vehicular accident." Charged with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, Tabao raises an alibi as a defense and that the injuries suffered by Lanete were not caused by him. ISSUE: Is petitioner Tabao guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide? RULING: YES, Tabao is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. In order for conviction to be decreed for reckless imprudence, the following must be proven: (1) the material damage suffered by the victim, (2) the failure in precaution on the part of theaccused, and (3) the direct link between material damage and failure in precaution must be established beyond reasonable doubt. All three were established in this case. First, the fact of Rochelle Lanete’s death was stipulated during pre-trial, as well as duly established during trial. Second, petitioner failed to exercise precaution in operating his vehicle. The right of a person using public streets and highways for travel in relation to other motorists is mutual, coordinate and reciprocal. He is bound to anticipate the presence of other persons whose rights on the street or highway are equal to his own. Also, as to the findings of Dr. Atienza, he did not state that the injuries suffered by the victim were only on her left side. This indicates that it was not only Mendoza’s car which hit the victim but another vehicle. Lastly, the eyewitness account of Soriano provides the necessary link between the petitioner's failure to exercise precaution in operating his vehicle and Rochelle Lanete’s death. Victor provided direct evidence as eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime; the defense of alibi must fail. Hence, Tabao is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.