Answers of Last Resort Alvin

1|Page June 2016
How to Be a Little Lawyerly in the Bar

The provincial way of passing The Bar Exam
By Atty. Alvin P. Cardines
preface
The Bar is all about language. To others, however, it involves greater knowledge of
the law.1 They say that it is the flesh which fills the vessel that leans substantial to become
successful in the exam. Indeed, one needs the law. But of what use is learning the rules and
laws if one does not have the constant facility in expressing and making it animate in words?
The Bar is not too demanding but a candidate must at least have a little knowledge of the
basics of the law, brew it with practical logic, and infuse them in a sweetened
language. If these things are done, then and only then that one will have an answer
blended in sophistication. (But this material puts emphasis in language)
Suppose you are the examiner. You will be reading more than five thousand booklets.
As you read them trying to appreciate the answers of the candidates, you will soon realize
that there is a pattern---all monotonous responses to questions. The candidates answer each
problem in such a droning fashion that it will make your evaluation boring. Little by little
these monotonous answers will drain your interest. As a result, you might be giving the
candidates a failing grade.
But as you continue your task, you chanced upon a booklet of a candidate, the
answers of which are not demonstrated by solid laws and legal principles. Despite this
deficiency, you are amazed by how he presents his arguments, albeit fallacious. The words
and language he employed triggered your stimuli and provoked your senses. Thus, from the
state of dullness while trying to appreciate the answers of previously-checked booklets, you
now begin to shift.
The point here is not too complex to understand. A candidate must not be wed to the
notion that only the mastery of the law is what it takes to pass the bar. Although this may
seem to be the standard, it is undeniable that language, too, plays a significant part. One
may be confronted with a killer question, as if the candidate has no idea at all, or if he has,
he is caught between uncertainties, but being playful with semantics and having the ability
to impress upon the examiner that law is not as ―dry as dust‖, he might reconsider the
choice of frustrating one‘s ambition. How a candidate answers in the bar is too crucial in
almost all every imaginable context in the whole process of passing the exam.
Corollary, this material wishes to give a seed of utility and hope to a bar candidate
with the aim that he‘ll nurture it and take what can be reaped in due time. Part 1 contains
some citations in splendid linguistics which proved to be useful during the contributor‘s bar
experience. Some of them are taken from the pens of authorities and justices of the Supreme
Court while efforts have been made by the contributor to produce the others.2 They were
ready-made answers which are to be used if the facts found in the bar questions call their
applications. In a bid to help the candidate, it is pleaded that one must first learn the
rudiments of the law so that the medium must, at least, have the substance to persuade the
examiner.
The second part deals with the structure of how questions in the bar should be
answered. The notorious three-paragraph rule is included. Meanwhile, the contributor has
also incorporated some conjunctive adverbs and other transitional phrases which can be
used in the bar to make one‘s answer a little legalistic or lawyerly. Thus, in the third part is a
list of these items which might help in making a logical, coherent and impressive reasoning.
1 This is actually the most important. I may have the law in my answers but I believe that it was the
manner on how I presented my answers which helped me pass the bar. Truth to be told, there were items
which I was unsure of but I offered the examiner an answer using provocative language.
2 Some citations were omitted due to haste and owing to the fact that I came across with them when I was
still reviewing for the bar. Concerns over the sources were of little concern then.
2|Page June 2016
i3
―In rape cases, there are no half measures or even quarter measures nor is their gravity
graduated by the inches of entry. Partial penile penetration is as serious as full penetration;
the rape is deemed consummated in either case. In a manner of speaking, bombardment of
the drawbridge is invasion enough even if the troops do not succeed in entering the castle.‖
(J. Cruz in People vs. Salinas, G.R. No. 107204, May 6, 1994)
―Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and should be collected without necessary
hindrance. They are what we pay for a civilized society. Without taxes, the government
would be paralyzed for lack of motive power to activate and operate it. The government, for
its part, is expected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits intended to
improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values.‖
(Commissioner vs. Algue)
―We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a
sacred and perpetual bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any other
reason.‖ (Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr., SBC Case No. 519, July 31, 1997)
"If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this
only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does
not know." (Chua-Cua vs. Clave, G.R. No. 49549, August 30, 1990)
―The Court, like all well-meaning persons, has no desire to dash romantic fancies, yet in the
exercise of its duty, is all too willing when necessary to raise the wall that tears Pyramus and
Thisbe asunder.‖ (Concerned Employee vs. Glenda Espiritu Mayor, AM No. P-02-1564, 23
November 2004)
―An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is as x x x inoperative as though it had never been passed.‖
(If question asks whether a candidate is guilty of early campaigning)

―The law is clear as daylight. Under the Omnibus Election Code, a candidate can only be
held liable for election offenses committed during or within the campaign period, not before
the start of such period.‖
(If you are asked to decide; if you are unsure as to the guilt of the accused; does not know
the elements of a crime; safe answer)
―The proof against the accused must withstand the test of reason; the strongest suspicion
must not be permitted to sway judgment. Judgment must be based on proof beyond
reasonable doubt.‖
(If the question pertains to the legality of Bangsamoro)4

―By local autonomy, the Constitution does not contemplate the existence of another state
within the Philippine State; neither does it provide a transitory status that aims to prepare
any part of the Philippine territory for independence.‖
3 The following do not cover all important doctrines and concepts that are needed by the candidate to
learn. I am just sharing what I prepared during my bar experience so that dealing with questions that call
their application and hard or confusing ones will be easy to deal with. The candidates can have their own
list of doctrines crafted in interesting language from the decisions of SC. Note: I appreciate the decisions
of Js. Cruz, Bellosillo, Leonen & Tinga.
4 The constitutionality thereof has not been put to issue yet.
3|Page June 2016
(If question is about the liability of accused; unsure of your answer; general)
―The accused is criminally liable because he who commits an intentional felony is
responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom,
whether foreseen, intended or not.‖
(If problem calls for an answer involving self-defense)

―Often when there is danger to life caused by an emergency, the means employed to
overcome the aggression is not dictated by formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of
self-preservation.‖
―Taxation as stated in the case of Phil. Guaranty Co., Inc. v. Commissioner [13 SCRA 775] is
a power predicated upon necessity. It is a necessary burden to preserve the State‘s
sovereignty and a means to give the citizenry an army to resist aggression, a navy to defend
its shores from invasion, a corps of civil servants to serve, public improvements for the
enjoyment of the citizenry, and those which come within the State‘s territory and facilities
and protection which a government is supposed to provide.‖
(Unsure; question asks whether to decide between labor and capital)

―In case of reasonable doubt, courts are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the poor,
to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion.‖
(Ibid; safe answer)

―Section 10, Article II of the Constitution provides that the State shall promote social justice
in all phases of national development. Pursuant thereto, courts are called upon to tilt the
balance in favor of the poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and
compassion.‖
(Inclination is for management; if employee harps on social justice)

―But social justice cannot be properly resorted to trample upon the rights of others nor to
shield wrongdoings or illegal acts prejudicial to the rights of employers who, under the
Constitution, are also entitled to protection.‖
(Ibid)
―The rule that unconditional kindness, concern, sympathy and solicitude should be
extended to workers as a means of protecting labor is not always the rule. To disregard the
employer‘s own rights and interests on the basis thereof is unjust and unacceptable.‖
―The instant case lurks at the threshold of another emasculation of the stages of execution of
rape by considering almost every attempt at sexual violation of a woman as consummated
rape, that is, if the contrary view were to be adopted. The danger there is that that concept
may send the wrong signal to every roaming lothario, whenever the opportunity bares itself,
to better intrude with climactic gusto, sans any restraint, since after all any attempted
fornication would be considered consummated rape and punished as such. A mere strafing
of the citadel of passion would then be considered a deadly fait accompli, which is absurd.‖
(J. Bellosillo in People vs. Primo Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000)
―Thus, touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact,
stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of
the victims vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ,
and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of
consummated rape.‖ (Ibid)
(Unsure whether for management or against employee; CBA)

4|Page June 2016
―The terms and conditions of a collective bargaining contract constitute the law between the
parties. Compliance thereof is mandated by the expressed policy to give protection to labor.
To deny binding force to the CBA would place a premium on a refusal by a party thereto to
comply with the terms of the agreement.‖
(Safe answer; if you really don’t know the answer in Remedial Law)
―Procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application
of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former
must yield to the latter.‖
―The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their
own will, and lives only by their will.‖ (Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheaton) 264, 387
(1821)
―We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp
that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.‖ (US
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall)
―It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. If
two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each… This is
the very essence of judicial duty.‖ Ibid.
―The law does not expect a man to be prepared to defend every act of his life which may be
suddenly and without notice alleged against him.‖ (CJ Marshall in the trial of Aaron Burr,
August 1807)
―The existence of employer-employee relationship is determined by law and not by contract.

Even if parties stipulate that no such relationship exists but the totality of facts warrant a
conclusion that such relationship is present, then the latter context has to be adhered.‖
―X is a regular employee. Probationary employment shall be governed by the rule that the
employer shall make known to the employee the reasonable standards under which he will
qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement. Where no standards are made
known to the employee, he shall be deemed as a regular employee.‖
―Yes, B is a regular employee. The primary test of determining regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee to the
usual trade or business of employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.‖
―Unless legally flawed, a testator‘s intention in his last will and testament is its life and soul
which deserves reverential observance.‖
―Resignation is too harsh a penalty.‖5
―This Court makes clear that the ‗moot and academic principle‘ is not a magical formula that
can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case.‖ (J. De Castro in Resident Marine
Mammals vs. Reyes, et.al., 2015)
―A will is the testator speaking after death. Its provisions have the same force and effect in
the probate court as if the testator is alive and present.‖
5 Safe answer. Generally acceptable for as long as the same is correctly applied based on facts.
5|Page June 2016
―The parties are at liberty to agree on such terms and conditions as they see fit that neither
contravene law nor morals, good customs and public policy.‖
―Courts cannot constitute themselves as guardians of persons who are not legally
competent. Courts operate not because one person has been defeated or overcome by
another but because he has been defeated or overcame illegally.‖
―Minors occupy a privileged position under our law.‖
―There is little relish in deciding this present petition, pronouncing as it does the marital
bond as having been inexistent in the first place. It is possible that respondent, despite her
psychological state, remains in love with petitioner, as exhibited by her persistent challenge
to the petition for nullity. In fact, the appellate court placed undue emphasis on
respondent‘s avowed commitment to remain in the marriage. Yet the Court decides these
cases on legal reasons and not vapid sentimentality. Marriage, in legal contemplation, is
more than the legitimatization of a desire of people in love to live together.‖ (This is a
landmark case on Psychological Incapacity which proclaims, under certain circumstances,
habitual lying as constitutive of psychological incapacity which may lead to nullity of
marriage. G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006 in the pen of J. Tinga)
―Jurisprudence since then has recognized that psychological incapacity ―is a malady so
grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
matrimonial bond one is about to assume.‖ (Ibid)
―To the mind of the Court, all of the above are indications that respondent is psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential obligations of marriage. It has been shown clearly
from her actuations that respondent has that propensity for telling lies about almost
anything, be it her occupation, her state of health, her singing abilities, her income, etc. She
has this fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities. She practically
lived in a world of make believe making her therefore not in a position to give meaning and
significance to her marriage to petitioner. In persistently and constantly lying to petitioner,
respondent undermined the basic tenets of relationship between spouses that is based on
love, trust and respect. As concluded by the psychiatrist presented by petitioner, such
repeated lying is abnormal and pathological and amounts to psychological incapacity.‖
(Ibid)
―It should be noted that the lies attributed to respondent were not adopted as false
pretences in order to induce petitioner into marriage. More disturbingly, they indicate a
failure on the part of respondent to distinguish truth from fiction, or at least abide by the
truth. Petitioner‘s witnesses and the trial court were emphatic on respondent‘s inveterate
proclivity to telling lies and the pathologic nature of her mistruths, which according to them,
were revelatory of respondent‘s inability to understand and perform the essential
obligations of marriage. Indeed, a person unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality
would similarly be unable to comprehend the legal nature of the marital bond, much less its
psychic meaning, and the corresponding obligations attached to marriage, including
parenting. One unable to adhere to reality cannot be expected to adhere as well to any legal
or emotional commitments.‖ (Ibid)
―The law is not and should not be used as an instrument to impede the achievement of a
salutary humane policy.‖ (Life-saving answer in labor/political/civil law)
―No matter how noble and worthy of admiration the purpose of an act, but if the means to
be employed in accomplishing it is simply irreconcilable with constitutional parameters,
then it cannot still be allowed.‖
6|Page June 2016
―There is no double jeopardy. What is being prohibited is prosecution for the same offense,
not for the same act.‖
―Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns or heirs.‖
―The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges,
to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.‖ (The Red Lily, Chapter 7 (1894) by Anatole France,
French novelist, cited by J. Leonen in his dissenting opinion in Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan)
―A contract is what the law defines it to be, not what the contracting parties call it.‖
―The first guideline under Molina provides that ―any doubt should be resolved in favor of
the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.‖
Marriage is protected under the Constitution and existing laws. In case of DOUBT in
petitions for nullity cases, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage. In
other words, the petition must be examined strictly in favor of the validity of marriage. If the
issue can be resolved both ways — for or against declaration of nullity — the issue must be
resolved in favor of marriage, which means that petition must be dismissed.‖
―The argument of the plaintiff is an invitation for the court to believe the unbelievable, to
accept the unacceptable, and to render wholesome what is otherwise.‖
―Dismissal is too harsh a penalty.‖
―An act of God does wrong to no one. That is, no one is responsible in damages for
inevitable accidents.‖ (In case of fortuitous events)
―It is physically and legally impossible. No one is bound to do what is impossible.‖
―Good faith demands that what is agreed on must be done.‖
―One ought not to take advantage of his own wrong.‖
―It is always safer to err in acquitting than in punishing, and on the side of mercy rather
than justice.‖
―Everything that the law does not forbid is permitted. Nowhere in the Labor Code…‖
―This dismissal is in keeping with the spirit of the law which commands that a case should
be disposed of with the least possible delay.‖
―The return of the money does not free the person presenting it. Thus, even if the civil
liability of the accused is settled, it does not follow that his criminal liability is likewise
extinguished.‖
―Long time and long use beyond the memory of men suffice for right.‖ (Ownership through
undisturbed possession)
―Where the law gives a right, it gives a remedy to recover.‖
―One about to be born is held as already born as long as the issue is to his benefit.‖
―The court is not expected to be deficient in showing justice.‖

7|Page June 2016
―Children/women occupy a special privilege under the law.‖
―Where blood has been spilled, the case is unpardonable.‖
―No one ought to be punished twice for the same offense.‖ (Double Jeopardy)
―No one ought to be twice troubled for one and the same cause.‖ (Res Judicata)
―A person who exercises his own right does no injury to anyone.‖
―Nothing is so natural as to dissolve anything in the way in which it was bound together;
therefore the obligation of words is taken away by words; the obligation of mere consent is
dissolved by the contrary consent. In the case at bar, since there is an agreement to
discharge X in his obligation, it follows that X cannot be bound by…‖
―A person who is permitted to do greater things ought not to be forbidden to do the lesser.
As a consequence of ownership, he has the right to dispose the property…‖
―Not everything that is lawful is honourable; not everything that is allowable is morally
right.‖ (Dismissal of an employee)
―All have liberty to renounce all things that have been granted in their favor.‖ (Assignment
of rights, inheritance/succession)
―It neither is a matter of unquestionable law that contracts that have been entered neither
illegally nor with fraud must in all respects be observed.‖
―When facts and the law are evenly divided, the defendant must be acquitted.‖ (Adherence
to presumption of innocence)
―Love cannot endure indifference. It needs to be wanted. Like a lamp it needs to be fed out
of the oil of another‘s heart or its flames burn low.‖ (Henry Ward Beecher cited by J.
Leonen in his dissent over a case involving presumptive death of absent spouse)
―A wife abandoned with impunity, also deserves to be happy.‖ (Ibid)
―To be present in any relationship especially that of marriage is a complex affair. There are
interests to be compromised for each other, temperaments to be adjusted [and] evolving
personalities to be understood in the crucible of common experiences. The moments of bliss
are paid for by the many moments of inevitable discomfort as couples adjust their many
standpoints, attitudes, and values for each other. (Concurring opinion of J. Leonen in
Garcia vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013 declaring RA 9262 as constitutional)
―We should be open to realities which may challenge the dominant conception that violence
in intimate relationship only happen to women and children. This maybe predominantly
true, but even those in marginal cases deserve fundamental constitutional and statutory
protection. We should be careful that in correcting historical and cultural injustices, we may
typecast all women as victims, stereotype all men as tormentors or make invisible the
possibility that in some intimate relationships, men may also want to seek succour against
acts defined in Section 5 of RA 9262 x x x.‖ (Ibid)
―It surely does allow the pen of the journalist to be used as a mighty sword to rip open the
facades which hide misconduct and corruption, but it is a two-edged weapon which he must
wield with care not to wound the innocent while exposing the guilty.‖ (Justice Mark
Fernando, HC of Sri Lanka, 1988 in IV SLR 340, further cited in Fiction and Poetry in
Judgments by Chanima Wijebandara)
8|Page June 2016
―What greater thing is there for two human souls than to feel that they are joined for life –
to strengthen each other in all labour, to rest on each other in all sorrow, to minister to each
other in all pain, to be one with each other in silent, unspeakable memories at the moment
of the last parting.‖ (Divorce issue; sanctity of marriage) Adame Bede by George Eliot
decision of the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar
(Civil Appeal No. 6288 of 2008)
―The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment‘s Due Process Clause
extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including
intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs (Eisenstadtv. Baird, 405 U. S. 438,
453; Griswoldv. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486). Courts must exercise reasoned
judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord
them its respect.‖
―This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or
cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so
the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.‖ (US
Supreme Court speaking through Justice Kennedy in Obergefell vs. Hodges (576 U. S.
____ (June 26, 2015) where same-sex marriage was held to be constitutionally protected)
―The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under
the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the
same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise
the fundamental right to marry. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases
are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same
terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.‖ (Ibid)
―The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain
specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.
The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex
and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages
between persons of the opposite sex.‖ (Ibid)
―The individual's desire for privacy is never absolute, since participation in society is an
equally powerful desire. Thus each individual is continually engaged in a personal
adjustment process in which he balances the desire for privacy with the desire for disclosure
and communication of himself to others, in light of the environmental conditions and social
norms set by the society in which he lives.‖ (Alan Westin in his Privacy and Freedom, cited
by SC through J. Velasco, Jr. in Vivares and Sps. Suzara vs. STC, G.R. No. 20266, 2014.
Here, SC said the right to privacy of the students was not violated)
―[A] person who places a photograph on the Internet precisely intends to forsake and
renounce all privacy rights to such imagery, particularly under circumstances such as here,
where the Defendant did not employ protective measures or devices that would have
controlled access to the Web page or the photograph itself.‖ (Ibid)
―The law imposes a duty of diligence on the collecting bank to scrutinize checks deposited
with it for the purpose of determining their genuineness and regularity. The collecting bank
being primarily engaged in banking holds itself out to the public as the expert and the law
holds it to a high standard of conduct.‖ (J. Perez in Sps. Areza vs. Express Savings Bank,
G.R. No. 176697, 2014)
―While we deeply sympathize with the petitioners over the loss of their son under the tragic
circumstances here related, we nevertheless are unable to extend them the material relief
9|Page June 2016
they seek, as a balm to their grief, under the law they have invoked.” (J. Isagani Cruz in
Amadora vs. CA)
―This Court has stressed more than once that social justice - or any justice for that matter -
is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is
true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to tilt the balance in favor of the
poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and compassion. But never is
it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich simply
because they are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, according to
the mandate of the law.‖ (Justice Cruz in Gelos vs. CA, G.R. No. 86186 May 8, 1992)
―It was one of those prosaic decisions not requiring deep thought or long deliberation. The
petitioner arrived at it almost as a matter of course, applying what he believed then to be
common sense. Little did he realize until later that it would cause him much anguish, even
endanger his life, and ultimately lead to this litigation. But such are the quirks of fate.‖ (J.
Cruz in Hernandez v. Commission on Audit)
―Hindsight is a cruel judge. It is so easy to say, after the event, that one should have done
this and not that or that he should not have acted at all, or else this problem would not have
arisen at all. That is all very well as long as one is examining something that has already
taken place. One can hardly be wrong in such a case. But the trouble with this retrospective
assessment is that it assumes for everybody an uncanny prescience that will enable him by
some mysterious process to avoid the pitfalls and hazards that he is expected to have
foreseen. It does not work out that way in real life. For most of us, all we can rely on is a
reasoned conjecture of what might happen, based on common sense and our own
experiences, or our intuition, if you will, and without any mystic ability to peer into the
future. So it was with the petitioner.
xxx
It seems to us that the petitioner was moved only by the best of motives when he encashed
the checks on July 1, 1983, so his co-employees in Ternate could collect their salaries and
wages the following day. Significantly, although this was a non-working day, he was
intending to make the trip to his office the following day for the unselfish purpose of
accommodating his fellow workers. The other alternative was to encash the check is on July
5, 1983, the next working day after July 1, 1983, which would have meant a 5-day wait for
the payment of the said salaries and wages. Being a modest employee himself, Hernandez
must have realized the great discomfort it would cause the laborer who were dependent on
their wages for their sustenance and were anxious to collect their pay as soon as possible.
For such an attitude, Hernandez should be commended rather than faulted.‖ (Ibid)
―The scales of justice must hang equal and, in fact, should even be tipped in favor of the
accused because of the constitutional presumption of innocence. Needless to stress, this
right is available to every accused, whatever his present circumstance and no matter how
dark and repellent his past. Despite their sinister connotations in our society, tattoos are at
best dubious adornments only and surely not under our laws indicia of criminality. Of bad
taste perhaps, but not of crime.‖ (J. Cruz)
―In any event, convictions are based not on the mere appearance of the accused but on his
actual commission of crime, to be ascertained with the pure objectivity of the true judge who
must uphold the law for all without favor or malice and always with justice.‖ (People vs.
Opida and Marcelo, G.R. No. L-46272 June 13, 1986)
"Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
10 | P a g e June 2016
Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
Government of measures calculated to ensure economic stability of all the component
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium
in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the
adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of
powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honoured principle of salus
populi est supremo lex." (Calalang vs. Williams, G.R. No. 47800, December 2, 1940)
―The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a
guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his
preparation and promise.‖ (DepEd vs San Diego, G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989)
―Retirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of the retiree because their
intention is to provide for his sustenance, and hopefully even comfort, when he no longer
has the stamina to continue earning his livelihood. After devoting the best years of his life to
the public service, he deserves the appreciation of a grateful government as best concretely
expressed in a generous retirement gratuity commensurate with the value and length of his
services. That generosity is the least he should expect now that his work is done and his
youth is gone. Even as he feels the weariness in his bones and glimpses the approach of the
lengthening shadows, he should be able to luxuriate in the thought that he did his task well,
and was rewarded for it.‖ Santiago v. COA, G.R. No. 92284, July 12, 1991 cited in Bengzon
v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524 April 15, 1992)
―Statistics never lie, but lovers often do, quipped a sage. This sad truth has unsettled many a
love transformed into matrimony. Any sort of deception between spouses, no matter the
gravity, is always disquieting.‖ (Antonio vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006)
―Marital union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time
it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage
is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with
love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise,
conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.‖Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals and
Gina Lao- Tsoi, GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997)
―Love happens to everyone. It is dubbed to be boundless as it goes beyond the expectations

people tagged with it. In love, ―age does matter.‖ People love in order to be secure that one
will share his/her life with another and that he/she will not die alone. Individuals who are in
love had the power to let love grow or let love die – it is a choice one had to face when love is
not the love he/she expected.‖ (Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738, August 14,
2009)
―The nuptial vows which solemnly intone the matrimonial promise of love ‗for better or for
worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part,‘ are
sometimes easier said than done, for many a marital union figuratively ends on the reefs of
matrimonial shoals. In the case now before us for appellate review, the marriage literally
ended under circumstances which the criminal law, disdainful of romanticism, bluntly calls
the felony of parricide.‖ (People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Takbobo, GR No. 102984, 30
June 1993)
―In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains
doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all
possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it
11 | P a g e June 2016
would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs
on to one‘s inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.‖ (Lejano vs.
People/People vs. Webb, G.R. No. 176389/G.R. No. 176864, Dec. 14, 2010)
―The relation at the bar to the courts is a peculiar and intimate relationship. The bar is an
attaché of the courts. The quality of justice dispensed by the courts depends in no small
degree upon the integrity of its bar. An unfaithful bar may easily bring scandal and reproach
to the administration of justice and bring the courts themselves into disrepute.‖ (Cited in In
Re: Albino Cunanan, et.al, March 18, 1954)
―The days of the secret laws and the unpublished decrees are over. This is once again an
open society, with all the acts of the government subject to public scrutiny and available
always to public cognizance. This has to be so if our country is to remain democratic, with
sovereignty residing in the people and all government authority emanating from them.‖
(Tañada Vs Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915 December 29, 1986)
―Certainly, the rule of stare decisis is entitled to respect because stability in jurisprudence is
desirable. Nonetheless, reverence for precedent, simply as precedent, cannot prevail when
constitutionalism and the public interest demand otherwise. Thus, a doctrine which should
be abandoned or modified should be abandoned or modified accordingly. After all, more
important than anything else is that this Court should be right. (Olaguer vs Military
Commission, G.R. No. L-54558 May 22, 1987)
―Hence, a judge's official conduct and his behaviour in the performance of judicial duties
should be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. One who
occupies an exalted position in the administration of justice must pay a high price for the
honour bestowed upon him, for his private as well as his official conduct must at all times be
free from the appearance of impropriety. Because appearance is as important as reality in
the performance of judicial functions, like Caesar's wife, a judge must not only be pure but
also beyond suspicion. A judge has the duty to not only render a just and impartial decision,
but also render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and
impartiality, and also as to the judge's integrity. "It is obvious, therefore, that while judges
should possess proficiency in law in order that they can competently construe and enforce
the law, it is more important that they should act and behave in such a manner that the
parties before them should have confidence in their impartiality." (Joaquin vs.
Javellana [A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601. November 13, 2001]
―We take this opportunity to reaffirm our concern for the lowly worker who, often at the
mercy of his employers, must look up to the law for his protection. Fittingly, that law
regards him with tenderness and even favor and always with faith and hope in his capacity
to help in shaping the nation's future. It is error to take him for granted. He deserves our
abiding respect. How society treats him will determine whether the knife in his hands shall
be a caring tool for beauty and progress or an angry weapon of defiance and revenge. The
choice is obvious, of course. If we cherish him as we should, we must resolve to lighten "the
weight of centuries" of exploitation and disdain that bends his back but does not bow his
head.‖ (Cebu Royal Plant vs. The Honorable Deputy Minister of Labor, G.R. No. L-58639,
August 12, 1987)
―This Court has declared that the state policy on the heinous offense of rape is clear and
unmistakable. Under certain circumstances, some of them present in this case, the offender
may be sentenced to a long period of confinement, or he may suffer death. The crime is an
assault on human dignity. No legal system worthy of the name can afford to ignore the
traumatic consequences for the unfortunate victim and grievous injury to the peace and
12 | P a g e June 2016
good order of the community.‖ (J. Ynares-Santiago in People vs. Romeo Jalosjos, G.R. Nos.
132875-76. November 16, 2001)
―Rape is particularly odious, one which figuratively scrapes the bottom of the barrel of
moral depravity, when committed against a minor.‖ (Ibid)
―In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant is always scrutinized with extreme caution.‖
(Ibid)
―In the present case, there is sufficient proof to establish that the acts of accused-appellant
went beyond strafing of the citadel of passion or shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency,
as depicted in the Campuhan case, and progressed into bombardment of the drawbridge
[which] is invasion enough, there being, in a manner of speaking, a conquest of the fortress
of ignition. When the accused-appellant brutely mounted between Rosilyn‘s wide-spread
legs, unfetteredly touching, poking and pressing his penis against her vagina, which in her
position would then be naturally wide open and ready for copulation, it would require no
fertile imagination to belie the hypocrisy claimed by accused-appellant that his penis or that
of someone who looked like him, would under the circumstances merely touch or brush the
external genital of Rosilyn. The inevitable contact between accused-appellants penis, and at
the very least, the labia of the pudendum of Rosilyn, was confirmed when she felt pain
inside her vagina when the ―idiniin” part of accused appellants sex ritual was performed.‖
(Ibid)
“The defense seems to forget that there is no standard form of behaviour when it comes to
gratifying ones basic sexual instinct. The human sexual perversity is far too intricate for the
defense to prescribe certain forms of conduct. Even the word perverse is not entirely
precise, as what may be perverse to one may not be to another. Using a child of tender years
who could even pass as ones granddaughter, to unleash what others would call downright
bestial lust, may be utterly nauseating and repulsive to some, but may peculiarly be a festive
celebration of salacious fantasies to others. For all we know, accused-appellant may have
found a distinct and complete sexual gratification in such kind of libidinous stunts and
manoeuvres.‖ (Ibid)
"Zeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the
Constitution itself abhors." (Bagalihog vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 96356 June 27, 1991)
"Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in the
shadows with their dark, deep secrets...The furtive law is like a scabbarded saber that
cannot feint, parry or cut unless the naked blade is drawn." (Tañada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L
63915 December 29, 1986)
"The possible exception is the lawyer whose income is derived from teaching ballroom
dancing or escorting wrinkled ladies with pubescent pretensions." (Dissenting, Cayetano vs.
Monsod, G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991)
"Unless we are vigilant of our rights, we may find ourselves back to the dark era of the
truncheon and the barbed wire, with the Court itself a captive of its own complaisance and
sitting at the death-bed of liberty." (J. Cruz dissenting, Valmonte vs. De Villa,G.R. No.
83988 September 29, 1989)
―Believing myself to be among those alluded to, I will say without apology that I do not
consider a person a criminal, until he is convicted by final judgment after a fair trial by a
competent and impartial court. Until then, the Constitution bids us to presume him
innocent. He may seem boorish or speak crudely or sport tattoos or dress weirdly or
otherwise fall short of our own standards of propriety and decorum. None of these makes
13 | P a g e June 2016
him a criminal although he may look like a criminal.‖ (J. Cruz dissenting in People vs.
Malmstedt, G.R. No. 91107, June 19, 1991)
―While it is desirable, even imperative, that this Court, in accordance with the principle
of stare decisis, afford stability to the law by hewing to doctrines previously established, said
principle was never meant as an obstacle to the abandonment of established rulings where
abandonment is demanded by public interest and by circumstances. Reverence for
precedently simply as precedent cannot prevail when constitutionalism and public interest
demand otherwise. Thus, a doctrine which should be abandoned or modified should be
abandoned or modified accordingly. More pregnant than anything else is that the court
should be right.‖ (Dissenting Op., J. Romero in a case)
―In the hierarchy of fundamental civil liberties, the right of free expression occupies a
preferred position, the sovereign people recognizing that it is indispensable in a free society
such as ours. Verily, one of the touchstones of democracy is the principle that free political
discussion is necessary if government is to remain responsive to the will of the people. It is a
guarantee that the people will be kept informed at all times sufficiently to discharge the
awesome responsibilities of sovereignty.‖ (Ibid)
―Yet, it is also to be conceded that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. The right
of privilege of free speech and publication has its limitations, the right not being absolute at
all times and under all circumstances. For freedom of speech does not comprehend the right
to speak whenever, however, and wherever one pleases, and the manner, and place, or time
of public discussion can be constitutionally controlled.‖(Ibid)
―Not only must the danger be patently clear and pressingly present but the evil sought to be
avoided must be so substantive as to justify a clamp over ones mouth or a writing
instrument to be stilled. For these reasons, any attempt to restrict these liberties must be
justified by clear public interest, threatened not doubtfully or remotely but by clear and
present danger. The rational connection between the remedy provided and the evil to be
curbed, which in other context might support legislation against attack on due process
grounds, will not suffice. These rights rest on firmer foundation. Accordingly, whatever
occasion would restrain orderly discussion and persuasion, at appropriate time and place,
must have clear support in public danger, actual or impending. Only the greatest abuses,
endangering permanent interests, give occasion for permissible limitation.‖ (Blo Umpar
Adiong vs. Comelec, 207 SCRA 712, 1992)
―No such clear and present danger exist here as to justify banning political advertisements
from radio and television stations.‖ (Ibid)
―Police power, it has been declared often enough, rests upon public necessity and upon the
right of the state and the public to self-protection. For this reason, its scope expands and
contracts with changing needs.‖ (Bernas, The Constitution Of The Republic Of The
Philippines: A Commentary, Vol. I, 1987 Ed., P. 34.)
―Police power is dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is supposed
to regulate. Conditions change, circumstances vary; and to every such alteration the police
power must conform. What may be sustained as a valid exercise of the power now may
become constitutional heresy in the future under a different factual setting. Old notions may
become outmoded even as new ideas are born, expanding or constricting the limits of the
police power. For example, police measures validly enacted fifty years ago against the
wearing of less than sedate swimsuits in public beaches would be laughed out of court in
these days of permissiveness. (T)he police power continues to change even as constraints on
liberty diminish and private property becomes more and more affected with public interest
and therefore subject to regulation. (J. Cruz, Constitutional law, 1993 ed.)
14 | P a g e June 2016
―The power of taxation, while indispensable, is not absolute and may be subordinated to the
demands of social justice.‖ (Dissenting Opinion of Justice Isagani A. Cruz in Republic of
the Philippines v. Judge Peralta, 234 Phil. 40, 59 (1987)
―It is an accepted doctrine of construction that criminal statutes must be strictly interpreted.
In fact, no person should be brought within the terms of the penal law who is not clearly so
within, and no acts should be pronounced criminal unless so defined and penalized by law.‖
(J. Laurel dissenting in People vs. Baes, G.R. No. L-46000, May 25, 1939)
―The Bill of Rights occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law. It is thus
sacrosanct in this jurisdiction that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law.‖ (Justice Tinga)
―A total outsider and a mere kibitzer in the war between respondent and the unseen hand,
complainant confessed that he had nothing personal against respondent whom he did not
even know, much less acquainted with, but simply wanted allegedly to protect the court
from the embarrassment of having to employ a person of questionable moral standards.
Significantly, while accusing her of disgraceful and immoral conduct, complainant
admitted that respondent was a decent woman. All told, the accusation is a fiddle and a ruse
meant to impress all and sundry into believing that strangers and people in general have
become moral crusaders without compassion - a simply silly thought in the midst of awry
moral priorities and rampant rent-seeking incredibly tolerated in our society.‖ [J. Bellosillo
(for respondent) dissenting in Estrada vs. Escritor, AM P-02-1651, August 4, 2003. Here,
SC found respondent guilty of immoral conduct, delineating the standard of immorality]
―The alternative is not any better. This Court might be dissolving a strong and peaceful
family of more than two (2) decades and, in the extreme case, deprive respondent of
livelihood from which to feed herself and her family. At bottom, if we are to uphold the
complaint, we will be breaking up an otherwise ideal union of two (2) individuals who have
managed to stay together as husband and wife for more than twenty (20) years and at peace
with the world as solemnly attested to by the Jehovah‘s Witnesses to which they belong. And
what happens to their son born of their happy union? Certainly, it will adversely affect him
in his interaction with his friends and neighbours. This, in all conscience, Christians cannot
countenance.‖ (Ibid)
―The human side of this case should not be totally ignored because respondent‘s present
position is not one which has caused scandal to anyone truly concerned with public
morality. The instant case may therefore be viewed and appreciated with human
understanding as indeed it is more attuned to the interest of society and public service that
she be able to fulfil her obligation of maternal support and care for her son and true family
than for us to tear apart an otherwise ideal union of two loving and respectable individuals.‖
(Ibid)
“It is more than a matter of sympathy; it is a clear does of justice indeed to conclude that
respondent did not fail to live up to her ethical obligations; in conscience and in law, this
Court should be the last, and never, to cast the stone and stamp the badge of infamy upon
her legitimate desire for personal security and safety that in reality has bothered no one,
least of all, our own judicial institution.‖(Ibid)
―And hence, it is allowed as a consequence that when a man is once fairly found not guilty
upon any indictment, or other prosecution before any court having competent jurisdiction
of the offense, he may plead such acquittal in bar of any subsequent accusation for the same
crime.‖ (J. Bellosillo)
―In a provisional dismissal, the prosecution, the defense and the offended party, in effect,
enter into a tacit agreement for a temporary cessation of hostilities, i.e., to momentarily
holds in abeyance the prosecution of the accused. Paragraph 1 of Sec. 8 prescribes the
requirements thereto: (a) consent of the accused, and (b) notice to the offended party. It
15 | P a g e June 2016
must be remembered however that permanent dismissal of a case is but an offshoot of its
previous provisional dismissal and the subsequent failure to revive within the time frames
set forth in Sec. 8.‖
―Courts cannot - by an act of judicial legislation - abridge, amend, alter, or nullify
statutes. We do not sit as councils of revision, empowered to judicially reform or fashion
legislation in accordance with our own notions of prudent public policy. Certainly, lest we
are prepared to ride roughshod over this prerogative of Congress, we cannot interfere with
the power of the legislature to surrender, as an act of grace, the right of the State to
prosecute and to declare the offense no longer subject to prosecution after certain periods of
time as expressed in the statute. (On judicial legislation)
―The protection is not x x x against the peril of second punishment, but against being tried
again for the second offense. The fundamental philosophy that underlies the finality of an
acquittal is the recognition of the fact that the state with its infinite resources and power
should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual and expose him to
a state of perpetual anxiety and embarrassment as well as enhancing the possibility that
although innocent, he may be found guilty.‖
―With more weighty reason can we not accommodate respondent in his plea to avail of the
graces afforded by the doctrine since the records would show that he has yet to enter his
plea to the charges or that the trial on the merits has as yet to commence.‖
―The government may delay for a variety of reasons such as to gain time in which to
strengthen and document its case. The government may also delay, not with the view of
ensuring conviction of the accused, but because the government lacks sufficient resources to
move quickly. The species of governmental delay that are anathema to the right to speedy
disposition of cases are those which are purposely or negligently employed to harm or gain
impermissible advantage over the accused at the trial. The reason is that, in such
circumstance, the fair administration of justice is imperilled.‖
―A pall of gloom hovers ominously in the horizon. Looming in its midst is the spectre of
conflict the thunderous echoes of which we listened to intently for the past few days; two
great departments of government locked in a virtual impasse, sending them closer to the
precipice of constitutional confrontation. Emerging from the shadows of unrest is the
national inquest on the conduct of no less than the Chief Justice of this
Court. Impeachment, described by Alexis Tocqueville as the most formidable weapon that
has ever been placed in the grasp of the majority, has taken centre stage in the national
consciousness in view of its far-reaching implications on the life of our nation. Unless the
issues involved in the controversial cases are dealt with exceptional sensitivity and sobriety,
the tempest of anarchy may fulminate and tear apart the very foundations of our political
existence. It will be an unfortunate throwback to the dark days of savagery and brutishness
where the hungry mob screaming for blood and a pound of flesh must be fed to be pacified
and satiated.‖ (Separate opinion of J. Bellosillo on the decision of SC declaring as
constitutionally infirm the second impeachment complaint filed against of CJ Davide)
―While the impeachment mechanism is by constitutional design a sui generis political
process, it is not impervious to judicial interference in case of arbitrary or capricious
exercise of the power to impeach by Congress. It becomes the duty of the Court to step in,
not for the purpose of questioning the wisdom or motive behind the legislative exercise of
impeachment powers, but merely to check against infringement of constitutional
standards. In such circumstance, legislative actions might be so far beyond the scope of its
constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a
judicial response despite prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence.‖ (Ibid.
Expressing the view that impeachment is a political question within the sphere of Congress
but can nevertheless be looked upon by the Court if there is grave abuse)
“Constitutions are designed to meet not only the vagaries of contemporary
events but should be interpreted to cover even future and unknown circumstances. It
16 | P a g e June 2016
must withstand the assaults of bigots and infidels at the same time bend with the refreshing
winds of change necessitated by unfolding events. As it is oft repeated, constitutional
provisions are interpreted by the spirit which vivifies and not by the letter which killeth.
(Cited by J. Bellosillo in his concurring opinion over a case validating the
ascendancy/assumption of former PGMA to presidency)
―For respondent to submit to pressure, real or imagined, is to turn his back on his sacred
obligation to be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary
and resist any pressure from whatever source.‖
―I can understand the many travails of a judge in the discharge of his duties the terrible
pressure of work, the intense loneliness and agony of decision-making, the sharp pain of
criticism and the deafening silence and lack of appreciation for work well done, not to
mention the insecurities that hound him every now and then about the appropriateness of
his acts or the correctness of his decision. However, I also maintain that when a judicial act
warrants a sanction, then so must it be sanctioned. Respondent judge deliberately exceeded
his judicial limits when he reduced the penalty of conviction to one not permitted by law,
believing perhaps that he could defy and disregard express statutory provisions in the name
of leniency or compassion. He displayed a serious flaw in his judicial temperament when he
allowed himself admittedly to succumb to outside pressure. This is more condemnable than
gross ignorance, for in owning up to military duress and influence, he openly defied the
law.‖
―A STEREOTYPICAL ACTION, AN ARCHETYPAL RESPONSE, A MATTER OF DUE
PROCESS - a motion for reconsideration relieves the pressure of mistakes shrouded in the
mystified body of putative precedents. It serves the traditional and standard procedure for
a second chance not only in favor of party-litigants but the courts as well, before taking that
great leap of faith into stare decisis where even our errors are etched as rules of conduct or,
as our conscious choice would have it, into the jural postulate of a civilized society
where men are able to assume that they may control, for purposes beneficial to them, what
they have created by their own labor and what they have acquired under the existing
social and economic order.”
―The concept of absentee voting exudes an arresting charm of novelty and importance. For
the first time in our checkered political history, we are expanding the frontiers of our
electoral process warily treading into a veritable terra incognita. The Absentee Voting
Law empowers citizens, hitherto outside the reaches of the ballot, to assert their sovereign
will and dictate the national destiny. It caters to their fundamental yearning for some
measure of participation in the process of reaching fateful decisions for their country,
although they may be at some distant shores.‖
―In this jurisdiction, it is well settled that domicile and residence as used in election laws are
synonymous terms which import not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also
personal presence in that place coupled with conduct indicative of that intention. Domicile
is a question of intention and circumstances. There are three (3) rules that must be observed
in the consideration of circumstances: first, that a man must have a residence or domicile
somewhere; second, domicile is not easily lost, once established it is retained until a new
one is acquired; and third, a man can have but one residence or domicile at a time.‖
―In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former‘s moral ascendancy
and influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. That ascendancy or
influence necessarily flows from the fathers parental authority, which the Constitution and
the laws recognize, support and enhance, as well as from the children‘s duty to obey and to
observe reverence and respect towards their parents. Such reverence and respect are deeply
ingrained in the minds of Filipino children and are recognized by law.‖
―Parallel to individual liberty is the natural and illimitable right of the State to self-
preservation. With the end of maintaining the integrity and cohesiveness of the body politic,
it behoves the State to formulate a system of laws that would compel obeisance to its
17 | P a g e June 2016
collective wisdom and inflict punishment for non-observance.‖ (J. Bellosillo in Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, 2001)
―As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who
are subject to it what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be
sustained.‖ (Ibid)
―The evil of a crime may take various forms. There are crimes that are, by their very nature,
despicable, either because life was callously taken or the victim is treated like an animal and
utterly dehumanized as to completely disrupt the normal course of his or her growth as a
human being . . . .‖
―Drastic and radical measures are imperative to fight the increasingly sophisticated,
extraordinarily methodical and economically catastrophic looting of the national
treasury. Such is the Plunder Law, especially designed to disentangle those ghastly tissues of
grand-scale corruption which, if left unchecked, will spread like a malignant tumor and
ultimately consume the moral and institutional fiber of our nation. The Plunder Law,
indeed, is a living testament to the will of the legislature to ultimately eradicate this scourge
and thus secure society against the avarice and other venalities in public office.‖ (J.
Bellosillo writing for the SC in declaring Plunder Law as constitutional)
―With blood and gore akin to the butchery of swine in slaughterhouses Castanito Gano
mercilessly hacked his three (3) victims and robbed them of their few earthly possessions.‖
―Put not your trust in money; rather, put your money in trust. Perhaps this concept was
unknown to private respondent Leovino Jose and his town mates when they invested their
hard-earned money in a paluwagan that would "treble in fifteen (15) days. To their endless
consternation however they could only sense their money fast dissipating like a bubble
bursting in mid-air.‖
ii
Good answers in the bar are founded in good logic animated by language. Logic
and language structure the arguments in every bar question. It has been said that an
argument substantiated with laws may be wrong if it is demonstrated irrationally.
However, an argument that is otherwise not supported by good laws but is nevertheless
correctly reasoned can never be wrong.
In our setting, the acceptable method of answering the bar questions is the three-
paragraph rule. How does it work? As the name suggests, three paragraphs or sentences
are only needed to lay down one‘s argument in order to get the examiner‘s favor.
The first paragraph or sentence must state the direct response to the question,
whether it is a ―Yes‖, ―No‖ or a qualified answer. It must be brief and clear so as to
convey the object sought by the examiner.
―No, the argument of X is not correct.‖

―Yes, the act of X is legally permissible.‖
―It depends. (The question demands a qualified answer)‖
The second paragraph is crucial as it must carry the basis in support of your first
paragraph (proposition). It must contain the law, legal principle or applicable doctrines.
―Under Article __ of the Constitution…‖

―Instructive in this point is the doctrine that …‖
―People vs. Juan Tamad dictates that…‖
18 | P a g e June 2016
The third paragraph is the application of the legal bases in the second paragraph
to the facts used in the case problem.
―In the case at bar…‖

―Accordingly, X cannot take refuge…‖
―For this reason, X cannot be held …‖
Like:
No, the joint will cannot be admitted to
probate.
Under our jurisdiction, joint wills are legally

impermissible as provided under Article 818 of
the Civil Code, either for their reciprocal
benefit or for the benefit of a third person.
Seen in this light, the joint will executed by

Juan and Maria, both Filipino citizens, in
Boston, Massachusetts although valid therein,
cannot be probated here in the Philippines.
The afore-suggested style of answering the bar questions take its precedents in
the two common classes of reasoning: Deductive and Inductive Reasoning.
DEDUCTIVE REASONING (Syllogism)

A conclusion is inferred from two premises.
Structure:
Major premise - broad/universal truth
Minor premise - specific/narrowly applicable fact
Conclusion - drawn from premises
Examples:
All cars have wheels.
Toyota is a car.
Therefore, Toyota must have wheels.
Top students always get medals.

Juan is a top student.
Therefore, Juan gets a medal.
A law that violates the Constitutional provision

on appropriations is unconstitutional.
Budget Reform Decree of 1977 infringes upon
the fundamental law by authorizing the illegal
transfer of public money.
Thus, Budget Reform Decree of 1977 is

unconstitutional. (Demetria vs. Alba)
The rule in constructing syllogisms is easy. First, state the general rule or the law
to be applied in the case problem which would serve as the major premise. Second, state
the essential particular of the case problem which would be the minor premise. Finally,
19 | P a g e June 2016
conclusions should be drawn from how the major premise can be applied to the minor
premise.
INDUCTIVE REASONING
In case you are uncertain or with no major premise, inductive reasoning may be
useful. You must build your own conclusion if there is no clear statute or no clear
authority to cite. In inductive reasoning, you construct your own conclusion from
specific sets of cases or examples.
Examples:
In People vs. Juan Tamad, the Supreme Court
granted bail to the accused who is facing a
capital offense because of his uncontrolled
hypertension and advanced age.
Likewise, in People vs. Pedro Penduko, the

poor health condition of the appellant was
considered by the court in granting him
admission to bail.
Therefore, the Court can grant bail to an

accused even if he is charged with a capital
offense on account of humanitarian
considerations.
(Of course, there is a line of authority which

speaks that Inductive reasoning is weak in
legal arguments because the conclusions that
may be derived are uncertain and can be
disproved.)
iii
The following are some conjunctive adverbs or transitional phrases which can be
used to begin an argument in the bar, associate or link a proposition to the next point, or
put emphasis to a conclusion arrived after an analysis. Some of them may be used in
verbatim as a one-liner, although there is a risk of being verbose. But this risk is
nevertheless convoyed with a lawyerly argument, the use of the following conveys a little
legalese which may be amusing to the ears of the examiner.
The use, however, is a choice for the candidates to decide:

20 | P a g e June 2016
Aforegoing considerations Finally
Any act, therefore, For all intents and purposes
Applying the foregoing law/principle to Fundamental is the rule that
the present case For as long as it is within the scope of the
All told law
As a general proposition Fear to violate a sacred constitutional
Accordingly right affirms an affirmative answer.
A careful perusal of the instant case
A scrutiny of the facts in the case at bar Generally/as a general rule
As discussed above Guided by this precedent/principle
And further considering that
Arguably His argument has no legal leg to stand on.
As it stands His arguments are imbued with hallmarks
After all of truth.
Also His argument is bereft of legal basis.
As a result thereof His argument is not only at war with the
As such demands of reason but also contrary to
As defined under the law the clear intention of the rule.
As explained in the case of His acts were in total disregard of
A‘s contention is bereft of merit. His contention that… finds no support
As a fundamental proposition both in law and jurisprudence.
As a judge, I see no reason
Assuming, without conceding, that It is apt to restate here the hornbook
Applying these tenets doctrine that
A visible thread of partiality renders the In the absence of any clear and convincing
judgment doubtful. proof to the contrary
As a matter of law It is equally revelatory
As a matter of fact It is undisputed that
At the end of the pendulum In short
Anent thereto It necessarily follows that
Anent to the argument It is a condition sine qua non
It is evident that there lies a clear-cut
By any stretch of imagination distinction between
By any stretch of the most fertile In the same vein
imagination It bears emphasis that
Besides It is not enough that
By contrast Indeed,
Both law and reasons will lead to the It must be noted that
conclusion that It is rather clear, therefore, that
Building on consistent precedent, it would It overlooked the fact that
appear that X is In perpetuating the error
By venturing beyond the scope of It is well-recognized that
By force of logic and principle of common It must be stressed/argued/emphasized
sense, it would appear that In effect
By parity of reasoning In holding that
But more importantly In particular
Instructive on this point
Considering therefor It is not a proper subject of
Consequently In fine
Case law dictates that It cannot be gainsaid
Conformably with the mandate of the law In view of the foregoing disquisitions
Corollary thereto In this regard
Clearly then It nevertheless supports the conclusion
Court is sufficiently convinced that It is important to note that
Concededly It would be offensive to the basic rules of
Consistent with the views expressed above fair play and justice if
I find no basis for the proposition that
Even assuming for the sake of argument It is unnecessary to look beyond the
Evidently In such a scenario
Ergo In this regard
Even so In connection with
Equally important is the rule that In light of the aforegoing disquisitions
In view thereof
For these reasons/for this reason In addition
21 | P a g e June 2016
It does not bolster the contention that Needless to say
It is well to emphasize that Neither is it erroneous to assert that
It is against the fundamental principles of
justice, equity and good conscience. Otherwise
It is very evident that X wholly On the other hand
misapprehended the fact that On one hand
It is equally true On this note
In the interest of substantial justice Owing to this fact
It matters little that X Of equal pertinence to the case at bar
In relation to On the assumption that
It bears stressing that
It is noteworthy Primarily
In much the same manner Pertinently
I find nothing legally questionable Proceeding from the foregoing discourse
I cannot subscribe to the proposition Pursuant thereto
It is truly inconceivable that Plain common sense dictates that the
It is of little moment provision cannot be applied to situations
If I were the judge, I decline to accept the not contemplated by it.
proposition espoused by A that... Hence, I Prudence, however, dictates that
rule to deny.
In a similar context Quite clearly
Incidentally, I find it rather particularly Quite obviously
disturbing to assert that
It is equally absurd to affirm Relevant thereto
It is imperative Reasons of justice, sentiment and
In the long run compassion indicate and affirmative
It is doubly difficult in this particular case answer.
to apply
It goes without saying therefore that Similarly
In no mean measure Settled is the rule that
I find this argument errant and insipid. Since there is no showing of gross
I am not comfortable with the idea of error/negligence, it follows that
It is significant to stress Seen in this light
In contrast Stated differently/stated otherwise
It is worthy to note Stressed/argued/emphasized/asserted/ar
It is axiomatic, therefore, that ticulated
It can be reasonably concluded that Subsequently
It is safe to presume …should not be condemned
In view of the aforegoing Such interpretation, however, does not
It is a hornbook doctrine that seem to be in consonance with the
In this case unmistakable language, nor by the
In the case at bar obvious intent, of the law.
Significantly
Jurisprudence holds/ dictates/
enlightens/ instructs There is no plausible, reasonable and
Just as important is the principle in law justifiable reason to
that The petition must be denied/granted.
There is no question that
Lastly The propriety of the act
Lest it be misunderstood that There is now some space to believe that
Likewise The arguments are untenable
Legally tenable is the argument that There is no cogent reason to disturb
The argument of X is not persuasive
Measured against this standard The Court cannot give weight to the
Most fundamentally argument of
Moreover/furthermore/in addition The principle relied by X is of dubious
More importantly application in this case.
Thereafter
Nonetheless/nevertheless, the law The crux of his argument rests solely on
Nowhere in the facts recited would The crux of the controversy
indicate that The law speaks of
Not in accordance with law This notwithstanding
No amount of rationalization could justify The reason being is that
his act of The foregoing gains utmost importance
Necessarily
22 | P a g e June 2016
The distinction is without reasonable The said law is controlling and persuasive
foundation. The argument is not tenable
The reasons advanced by A in support The only conclusion that can be reached
thereof are The Court cannot frustrate the process
This analysis compels the conclusion that Thrust against the law
This principle apply with equal force to The rule under our jurisdiction is that
The circumstance evinces There is absolutely nothing from her
The same does not obtain, however, in actuations
There is therefore no legal basis to The dictates of prudence would counsel
support the finding that that
There is no dispute The bone of contention I have taken great
The law categorically states that pains analysing the position of
The crucial point respondent; regretfully, I am unable to
The case/law is inapplicable agree for my conscience shivers at its
This offends the rule that debilitating, crippling if not crushing,
The rights stemmed from impact upon our criminal justice system.
The court need not dwell The procedure is entirely irregular
The bare assertion that… does not The language of the law is clear.
persuade The law imposes upon X the burden
There is a need for proof of persuasive The court can be considered to have acted
character irregularly
The arguments of X find no legal bases There is no cogent reason to justify
both in law and jurisprudence. The running fault in this reasoning is
The facts of the case suggest obvious even to the simplistic mind.
To hold that … runs anathema This means, and ought to import, that
There is no question To torture the law based on A‘s
The said law is controlling and persuasive interpretation would result in an absurd
The argument is not tenable. situation that
There is no issue The reason is simple
The truth is the other way around because To this end
To be sure These circumstances cast a heavy pall of
The provision irresistibly conveys the idea doubt on whether
that There is a legal and physical impossibility
The argument must fail. There exists no cogent reason to further
The ground relied by A upends the dwell
familiar holding that The case at bar
The only conclusion that can be reached
The Court cannot frustrate the process Upon the instance of
Thrust against the law Upon the denial of the accused‘
The rule under our jurisdiction is that Under the circumstances attendant
There is absolutely nothing from her Under this context
actuations Under legal contemplation
The dictates of prudence would counsel Until and unless
that Under the foregoing rule
The bone of contention I have taken great Under certain circumstances
pains analysing the position of
respondent; regretfully, I am unable to Verily
agree for my conscience shivers at its Viewed from this perspective
debilitating, crippling if not crushing, Viewed from the strictly legal angle and in
impact upon our legal system. the light of judicial methods of
The procedure is entirely irregular ascertainment, the motion must be
The language of the law is clear. denied.
The case/law is inapplicable Verily, we cannot expand the letter and
This offends the rule that spirit of the provision and read into it a
The rights stemmed from meaning that is not there.
The court need not dwell
Therefore What obviously escapes A‘s understanding
The bare assertion that… does not is that
persuade While it is true that …., it does not
The arguments of X find no legal bases necessarily follow
both in law and jurisprudence. Wherefore,
The facts of the case suggest that Wherefore, premises considered
To hold that … runs anathema What remains material is that
There is no question Well beyond these facts
Without fear of contradiction
23 | P a g e June 2016
Well-settled is the rule that X insists that
With the foregoing
We do not see any infirmity in the present Yet the fact remains that
case justifying a departure from this well-
settled rule
X (or any character) cannot venture

beyond what the law provides
X is protected within the constitutional
mantle of due process.
X cannot capitalize on the
Epilogue
I am not an authority in legal techniques but I am sharing this material based on my
experiences. I had little in law when I took the bar exam. Relying in linguistics and with that
little knowledge of the law, I still was able to pass the exam. I was not given the opportunity to
have my law review in Metro Manila but had my foundations structured in Tacloban City. Faith,
luck and my competence made me a lawyer.
Here are some of the things I always put to mind during the entire bar period which I would
like to share with you:
a. Try not to make any erasures. If you write your answer and you later realize that it‘s
wrong, save yourself from such disaster and dare not to make an erasure. Erasures will
make your notebook messy. Saving your wrong answer in your first line/paragraph is
easy. Follow it with a contradictory statement which expresses the correct answer. Then
make a conclusion at the last sentence in such a way that you‘ll convince the examiner
that you are with the proposition espoused in your second sentence.
E.g. Yes, A‘s argument has legal basis because Because of impulse, you
the failure of plaintiff B in not moving the case immediately write down your
to be set for pre-trial warrants the dismissal of answer. Then you realize that
the complaint pursuant to Rule 18 of the Rules you’re wrong! Don’t panic.
Kalma la.
of Court.
However, it is likewise reasonable for plaintiff Save your answer. Make

contradictory statement. Find a
B to assert that such failure is not a ground for
way not to have a wrong answer!
dismissal because it is now the duty of the The situation calls your lawyerly
Clerk of Court, not of the plaintiff, to set the instinct.
case for pre-trial.
Wherefore, the dismissal of the case cannot be Conclude to persuade the

examiner that you are with No. 2
for B‘s failing to take any step for further
proposition. At least, you made
prosecution of his case because the further step an effort to correct yourself. Let
is not his, but for the Clerk of Court, to take. the examiner be the judge.
[Nota bene: Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure, as amended, the failure on the part of the plaintiff,
without any justifiable cause, to comply with any order of the court
or of the Rules, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length
of time, may result in the dismissal of the complaint either motu
proprio or on motion of the defendant. The answer above is further
based on Section 1, Rule 18 which provides that it is the duty of the
plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for pre-trial.
Previously, if plaintiff fails, Section 3, Rule 17 will apply. But
this has been amended already by the SC through A.M. No. 03-1-
09-SC which took effect on August 16, 2004 and now imposes on the
Clerk of Court the duty to issue a notice of pre-trial if the plaintiff
fails to file a motion to set the case for pre-trial conference.]
But if it is difficult, better make a one-line mark unto the sentence or phrase you wish to
erase.
24 | P a g e June 2016
Ex.: Yes, because all things given properties

brought by the wife to the marriage is
paraphernal.
b. In answering, make some spaces above and at the bottom of the notebook. Meaning,
begin your answer with at least two (2) spaces from the first blue line of your notebook
and, if possible, avoid consuming the whole page (save the same or at least one space at
the bottom). But the numeral or item must be on top. This will make your notebook
clean and in order (on the assumption that you observe the proper margin and
indention)
I. I.
Yes, A’s Start here A. Yes, A’s
B.
…be upheld.
End here
c. Make the best answers in the first three (3) or five (5) questions of every bar exam
subject, and the last item. Gather all your laws, language and logic in these items. I did
the same during my bar experience because we were told that with the gargantuan task
of an examiner in checking thousands of notebooks, they only and usually read the
answers of the first few items of the exam. Some, however, opt to read only the last item.
But this does not mean that you have to be negligible as to the other items. In my
experience, though, I intentionally skipped item no. 7 in Taxation. No one can blame me
because I was totally fed up in answering questions which, even in my dreams, I don‘t
wish to encounter. In fact, I was tempted to answer ―Our Father‖ but thanks to my
sanity, I refused to fall unto said temptation. ;-)
d. I used blue pen but black ink can do. Blue is brighter to the eyes.
e. There is no instruction or prohibition in the bar not to use the first page. Utilize it.
f. Answers in the bar must be inter-related. I applied some concepts in Political Law and
Corporation Law in Labor Law exam.
g. When things were uncertain or when I really don‘t have anything to answer, I just used
the life-saving answers I made (listed above). Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code are
worn-out provisions in my bar answers. ;-)
h. Memory (or memorization) is reliable but when it fails, as it usually happens sometimes,
reasons could be very useful. During this misfortune, “tahi-tahi” comes in. The exam is
an opportunity for a candidate to argue even if baseless, to stitch reason with another
reason to patch up a fleabag in your answer. You don‘t need to memorize, save for those
concepts or elements which you feel are bar materials and are important. All you need is
to understand the principle and apply it using clear, strong and expressive language.
Then, you‘ll nail the bar!
i. San Mig Light became indispensable for this young lawyer (I‘m just 25 years old as of
this writing). Every Saturday and Sunday evening before and after the exam,
respectively, I made it sure to take one can of beer for better sleep. It was effective
because I had a good sleep (after dreaming that Im already a lawyer).
j. Never fall prey of your own impulse in answering the questions. Take note of Item C. If
you already have an idea in your mind, write it down first in your Test Question since it
can be used as a scratch paper. I made this approach in answering the first five questions
since what is needed is a good and a legible answer. I wrote down my answers first in my
test paper and transfer the same to my notebook. At least, the spaces were
approximated; my penmanship straightened and my answers reviewed.
25 | P a g e June 2016
But, I also took note of the time constraints. After making draft answers for the first five
questions in the test paper and transferring them into my notebook, I now directly
answered on the notebook. Time is of the essence also.
k. One needs to relax, too. My past time habits were to surf my favourite shows in Youtube,
to socialize through facebook; read newspapers and have a usual chat with a friend
during the entire examination month of November. Before the exam, I had the luxury of
playing mah-jong.
l. If you want to pass the bar exam, perform well or start reading while in law school.
Because I already planned that I will just have my review in Tacloban since I was then
financially incapable to have a review in Metro Manila, I tried to read a lot. I devoted
much of my time in reading review materials which were remnants of typhoon Yolanda.
In law school, I am a constant customer of the library, going there three (3) hours before
the start of the class at five in the afternoon. For four (4) years during summer and
semestral breaks, I utilized the library and read thereat. As a result, everything went
smoothly months before the actual bar. I was able to enjoy also some luxuries like
playing mah-jong while in Tacloban before I went to Manila one week before the exam.
Playing mah-jong, or some memory games for this matter, was then my refuge. It‘s a
kind of meditation that offers deeper insights that the exam is not just full of gravity but
with amusement.
m. If you feel that you are not yet ready, do not compel yourself to take the exam.
Remember that the bar is the most treacherous examination in the country. It is not a
joke. Taking it requires preparations. Acting under the influence of your hasty desires, or
greed to become a lawyer instantly without accepting what reality is and disobeying the
truth that you are not yet ready neither attains success nor happiness nor your ultimate
goal. It will instead bring you to your own destruction because of depression and sorrow,
a case so bitter to take.
During our last class with Judge Sabandal (then provincial prosecutor), he asked me if I
will take the exam that year. I was hesitant in telling him my answer until he told me
cheekily: “Ayaw pag-take kun diri ka sigurado. Once you are ready, then take it.” And I
heeded the said advice. I graduated in 2014 but never took the exam on that same year.
Some of my classmates took the exam but unfortunately, our batch did not produce a
new lawyer then. In 2015, I decided to take the exam and fortunately I passed.
n. Taking the bar is a sort of psychological warfare. It instilled upon us the fear, depression
and excitement. You must be ready.
o. And ultimately, you must be religious and strengthen your faith to God. ;-)
-End-

Answers of Last Resort Alvin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answers of Last Resort Alvin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1|Page June 2016

How to Be a Little Lawyerly in the Bar

(If question asks whether a candidate is guilty of early campaigning)

(If the question pertains to the legality of Bangsamoro)4

(If problem calls for an answer involving self-defense)

(Unsure; question asks whether to decide between labor and capital)

(Ibid; safe answer)

(Inclination is for management; if employee harps on social justice)

(Unsure whether for management or against employee; CBA)

―The existence of employer-employee relationship is determined by law and not by contract.

―Resignation is too harsh a penalty.‖5

―Minors occupy a privileged position under our law.‖

―Dismissal is too harsh a penalty.‖

―It is physically and legally impossible. No one is bound to do what is impossible.‖

―Good faith demands that what is agreed on must be done.‖

―One ought not to take advantage of his own wrong.‖

―Where the law gives a right, it gives a remedy to recover.‖

―The court is not expected to be deficient in showing justice.‖

―Where blood has been spilled, the case is unpardonable.‖

―A person who exercises his own right does no injury to anyone.‖

―A wife abandoned with impunity, also deserves to be happy.‖ (Ibid)

―Love happens to everyone. It is dubbed to be boundless as it goes beyond the expectations

―No, the argument of X is not correct.‖

―Under Article __ of the Constitution…‖

―In the case at bar…‖

Under our jurisdiction, joint wills are legally

Seen in this light, the joint will executed by

DEDUCTIVE REASONING (Syllogism)

Top students always get medals.

A law that violates the Constitutional provision

Thus, Budget Reform Decree of 1977 is

Likewise, in People vs. Pedro Penduko, the

Therefore, the Court can grant bail to an

(Of course, there is a line of authority which

The use, however, is a choice for the candidates to decide:

X (or any character) cannot venture

However, it is likewise reasonable for plaintiff Save your answer. Make

Wherefore, the dismissal of the case cannot be Conclude to persuade the

[Nota bene: Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Ex.: Yes, because all things given properties

Yes, A’s Start here A. Yes, A’s

You might also like