Session 1 – why law; doctrines, value choices & philosophies

G.R. Nos. 138874-75 January 31, 2006

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO;" JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY;"
ALBERT CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK;" ARIEL BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias 'TISOY
TAGALOG;" JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG;" and JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM,"
Appellants.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

we have applied the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority embodied in Article 68 of the
Revised Penal Code -- the rationale of which is to show mercy and some extent of leniency in favor of
an accused who, by reason of his age, is presumed to have acted with less discernment. The case at
bar is another instance when the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority must apply.

For our resolution is the motion for reconsideration filed by brothers James Anthony and James
Andrew, both surnamed Uy, praying for the reduction of the penalties we imposed upon the latter on
the ground that he was a minor at the time the crimes were committed.

On February 3, 2004, we rendered a Decision3 convicting the Uy brothers, together with Francisco
Juan Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag of the crimes of (a)
special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape; and (b)
simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu City in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU
45303 and 45304 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

(1) In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, appellants FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias ‘PACO;’ JOSMAN
AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias ‘WESLEY;’ ALBERTO CAÑO alias ‘ALLAN PAHAK;’ ARIEL BALANSAG;
and JAMES ANDREW UY alias ‘MM,’ are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and are sentenced to suffer
the penalty of DEATH by lethal injection;

(2) In Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, appellants FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias ‘PACO’; JOSMAN
AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias ‘WESLEY;’ ALBERTO CAÑO alias ‘ALLAN PAHAK;’ ARIEL BALANSAG;
and JAMES ANDREW UY alias ‘MM,’ are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple kidnapping
and serious illegal detention and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA;

(3) In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, appellant JAMES ANTHONY UY who was a minor at the time the
crime was committed, is likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, he is declared guilty of simple
kidnapping and serious illegal detention and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) years
of prision mayor in its maximum period, as MINIMUM, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal
in its medium period, as MAXIMUM;

(4) Appellants are ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Marijoy and Jacqueline, in each
case, the amounts of (a) ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages; (c)
₱150,000.00 as moral damages; and (d) ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages.

Three (3) Justices of the Court maintain their position that RA 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it
prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is
constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

In accordance with Article 83 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of RA No. 7659,
upon the finality of this Decision let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the
President for the possible exercise of Her Excellency’s pardoning power.

SO ORDERED.

On March 23, 2004, the Uy brothers filed a motion for reconsideration anchored on the following
grounds:

ACCUSED JAMES ANDREW S. UY WAS, LIKE HIS YOUNGER BROTHER JAMES ANTHONY S. UY, A MINOR
AT THE TIME THE OFFENSES AT BAR ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED LAST JULY 16, 1997;

II

THE IDENTITY OF THE DEAD BODY OF THE WOMAN FOUND IN TAN-AWAN, CARCAR, CEBU LAST JULY
18, 1997 WAS NEVER CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THUS THE NEED FOR ITS EXHUMATION FOR DNA
TESTING.4

The issues raised in the above motion being intertwined with those raised by Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan,
Caño and Balansag in their separate motions for reconsideration, we deemed it appropriate to
consolidate the motions. After a painstaking evaluation of every piece and specie of evidence presented
before the trial court in response to the movants’ plea for the reversal of their conviction, still we are
convinced that the movants’ guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, in our Resolution
dated July 21, 2005, we denied all the motions. However, left unresolved is the issue of James Andrew’s
minority.

Hence, this disquisition.

In their motion, the Uy brothers claim that James Andrew was only seventeen (17) years and two
hundred sixty two (262) days old at the time the crimes were committed. To substantiate such claim,
he begs leave and pleads that we admit at this stage of the proceedings his (1) Certificate of Live Birth
issued by the National Statistics Office, and (2) Baptismal Certificate. In the ultimate, he prays that his
penalty be reduced, as in the case of his brother James Anthony.

Considering that the entry of James Andrew’s birth in the proffered Certificate of Live Birth is not legible,
we required the Solicitor General (a) to secure from the City Civil Registrar of Cotobato, as well as the
National Statistics Office, a clear and legible copy of James’ Certificate of Live Birth, and thereafter, (b) to
file an extensive comment on the Uy brothers’ motion, solely on the issue of James Andrew’s minority.

On November 17, 2005, the Solicitor General submitted his comment. i1 Attached therewith are clear
and legible copies of James’ Certificate of Live Birth duly certified by the Office of the City Civil
Registrar of Cotobato and the National Statistics Office. Both documents bear the entry October 27,
1979 as the date of his birth, thus, showing that he was indeed only 17 years and 262 days old when
the crimes were committed on July 16, 1997.

Consequently, the Solicitor General recommended that the penalty imposed on James Andrew be
modified as follows:

In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303 for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide and rape, the death penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

In Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, for the crime of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua should be reduced to twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum
period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
maximum, similar to the penalty imposed on his brother James Anthony in Criminal Case No. CBU-
45303.

The motion is meritorious.

Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 68. – Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. – When the offender is a
minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to
the last of article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:

xxx

2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.

Thus, the imposable penalty on James Andrew, by reason of his minority, is one degree lower than the
statutory penalty. The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide and rape, being death, one degree lower therefrom is reclusion perpetua.5
On the other hand, the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion
perpetua to death.
One degree lower therefrom is reclusion temporal.6 There being no aggravating and mitigating
circumstance, the penalty to be imposed on James Andrew is reclusion temporal in its medium period.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12)
years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion
temporal in its medium period, as maximum.7

Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed
upon James Andrew; while in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, the imposable penalty upon him is twelve
(12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion
temporal in its medium period, as maximum.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. Our Decision dated February 3, 2004
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, James Andrew Uy is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; while in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, the
penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as MINIMUM, to seventeen (17)
years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.
Lawyer’s Oath
I, _________________, do solemnly swear

That I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,

I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein;

I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;

I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor
consent to the same;

I will delay no man for money or malice,

And will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion,

With all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients;

And I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion.

So help me God.

CC LANGDELL
 First Efforts of pupils should go hand in hand with mine, should study with direct reference to
my instruction
 Secondly the study required should be of the kind from w/c they might reap the greatest and
most lasting benefit
 Thirdly, instruction should be of such a character that the pupils might at least derive a greater
advantage from attending it than from devoting the same time to private study
 Law considered as a science consists of certain principles or doctrines
Session 2 – briefs & digests
RICHARD NEUMAN LEGAL REASONING & LEGAL WRITING STRUCTURE, STRATEGY, STYLE
Legal Writing Is Decisional Writing
 Lawyers write for a different reason — to guide decision-making
 explaining how the law affects a decision the senior lawyer must make. The memorandum’s
purpose is to help the senior lawyer make that decision. This is called objective or predictive
writing.
 a lawyer might submit a motion memorandum or an appellate brief to persuade a judge or
several judges to decide in favor of the lawyer’s client. The document’s purpose is to persuade
each judge that the client’s position is the legally preferrable one. This is called persuasive
writing
 A lawyer’s job is to get good results for clients. A lawyer does that by making the right decisions
herself and by helping or persuading other people to make the right decisions. In legal writing,
your reader — your audience — reads for the purpose of deciding.
Writing Skills Can Profoundly Affect a Lawyer’s Career
 Everything depends on how well the lawyer uses words — speaking them, interpreting them,
and writing them.
 Law is “one of the principal literary professions” because “the average lawyer in the course of a
lifetime does more writing than a novelist.”
 Good writing skills are essential to a young lawyer looking for a job.
Where Law Comes From
 Statutes and statute-like materials. - Legislatures create rules by enacting statutes.; Statute-like
provisions include constitutions, administrative regulations, and court rules. They are not
enacted by legislatures, but in some — though not all — ways they are drafted like statutes.
 Judge-made law. - Courts record their decisions in judicial opinions, which establish precedents.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, those precedents can bind other courts in circumstances
o Lawyers use the words cases, decisions, and opinions interchangeably to refer to those
precedents. Finding them is called researching the case law.
 Courts make law in two ways. One is by interpreting statutes and statute like provisions, which
can be vague or ambiguous. Often we don’t know what a statute means until the courts tell us
through the judicial decisions that enforce it. When a court interprets the statute, it essentially
finishes legislature’s job. The other method is by creating and changing the common law, which
is entirely judge-made
The Common Law
 Today, however, legislatures have the superior law-making power.; Common law is still judge-
made law.
 But if a legislature enacts a statute that directly contradicts a common law rule, the statute
prevails, and the common law rule ceases to exist. Common law reasoning, however, permeates
the practice and study of law.
Rule-Based Reasoning
The Inner Structure of a Rule
 Law is made up of rules. A rule is a formula for making a decision.
 Every rule has three components:
o (1) a set of elements, collectively called a test;
o (2) a result that occurs when all the elements are present (and the test is thus satisfied);
and
o (3) a causal term that determines whether the result is mandatory, prohibitory,
discretionary, or declaratory. (As you’ll see in a moment, the result and the causal term
are usually integrated into the same phrase or clause.)
o Additionally, many rules have (4) one or more exceptions that, if present, would defeat
the result, even if all the elements are present.
 A causal term can be mandatory, prohibitory, discretionary, or declaratory. Because the causal
term is the heart of the rule, if the causal term is, for example, mandatory, then the whole rule
is, too.
o A mandatory rule requires someone to act and is expressed in words like ‘‘shall’’ or
‘‘must’’ in the causal term. ‘‘Shall’’ means ‘‘has a legal duty to do something.’’ ‘‘The
court shall grant the motion’’ means the court has a legal duty to grant it.
o A prohibitory rule is the opposite. It forbids someone to act and is expressed by ‘‘shall
not,’’ ‘‘may not,’’ or ‘‘must not’’ in the causal term. ‘‘Shall not’’ means the person has a
legal duty not to act.
o A discretionary rule gives someone the power or authority to do something. That person
has discretion to act but is not required to do so. It’s expressed by words like ‘‘may’’ or
‘‘has the authority to’’ in the causal term.
o A declaratory rule simply states (declares) that something is true. That might not seem
like much of a rule, but you’re already familiar with declaratory rules and their
consequences. For example: ‘‘A person who drives faster than the posted speed limit is
guilty of speeding.’’ Because of that declaration, a police officer can give you a ticket if
you speed, a court can sentence you to a fine, and your state’s motor vehicle
department can impose points on your driver’s license.
 Here’s a three-step method of figuring out what a rule means:
o Step 1: Break the rule down into its parts. List and number the elements in the test. (An
element in a test is something that must be present for the rule to operate.) Identify the
causal term and the result.
 If there’s an exception, identify it. If the exception has more than one element,
list and number them as well. (Exceptions can have elements, too; an
exception’s element is something that must be present for the exception to
operate.)
o Step 2: Look at each of those small parts separately. Figure out the meaning of each
element, the causal term, the result, and any exception. Look up the words in a legal
 dictionary, and read other material your teacher has assigned until you know what each
word means
o Step 3: Put the rule back together in a way that helps you use it. Sometimes that means
rearranging the rule so that it’s easier to understand. If when you first read the rule, an
exception came at the beginning and the elements came last, rearrange the rule so the
elements come first and the exception last.

 Organizing the Application of a Rule

o Where do you start? Remember that a rule is a structured idea: The presence of all the
elements causes the result, and the absence of any of them causes the rule not to
operate. Assume that in our jurisdiction the elements of burglary are what they were at
common law:
o 1. a breaking 2. and an entry 3. of the dwelling 4. of another 5. in the nighttime 6. with
intent to commit a felony inside
o To discover whether each element is present in the facts, simply annotate the list:
 1. a breaking: If a breaking can be the enlarging of an opening between the door
and the jam without permission, and if Lutz’s actions do not imply permission,
there was a breaking.
 2. and an entry: Welty ‘‘entered,’’ for the purposes of the rule on burglary, by
walking into the room, unless Lutz’s actions implied permission to enter.
 3. of the dwelling: Lutz’s apartment is a dwelling.
 4. of another: And it is not Welty’s dwelling; she lives down the hall.
 5. in the nighttime: Midnight is in the nighttime.
 6. with intent to commit a felony inside: Did Welty intend to assault Lutz when
she strode through the door? If not, this element is missing.
 Some Things to Be Careful About with Rules
o A rule might be expressed in any of a number of ways. Where law is made through
precedent — as much of our law is — different judges, writing in varying circumstances,
may enunciate what seems like the same rule in a variety of distinct phrasings.
o Two skills will help you become agile in the lawyerly use of rules.
 The first is language mastery, including an ‘‘ability to spot ambiguities, to
recognize vagueness, to identify the emotive pull of a word . . . and to analyze
and elucidate class words and abstractions.’’7
 The second is the capacity to think structurally. A rule is a structured idea, and
the rule’s structure is more like an algebraic formula than a value judgment. You
need to be able to figure out an idea’s structure and apply it to facts.
 Causes of Action and Affirmative Defenses
o The law cannot remedy every wrong. Many problems are more effectively resolved
through other means, such as the political process, mediation, bargaining, and economic
and social pressure.
 o A harm the law will remedy is called a cause of action (or, in some courts, a claim ). If a
plaintiff proves a cause of action, a court will order a remedy unless the defendant
proves an affirmative defense. If the defendant proves an affirmative defense, the
plaintiff will get no remedy, even if that plaintiff has proved a cause of action. Causes of
action and affirmative defenses (like other legal rules) are formulated as tests with
elements and the other components,

 Issues, Facts, Precedents, and Statutes

o An opinion announcing a court’s decision — also called a precedent or, most commonly,
a case — can include up to nine ingredients:
 1. a description of procedural events (what lawyers and judges did before the
decision was made)
 2. a narrative of pleaded or evidentiary events (what the witnesses saw and the
parties did before the lawsuit began)
 3. a statement of the issue or issues to be decided by the court
 4. a summary of the arguments made by each side
 5. the court’s holding on each issue
 6. the rule or rules of law the court enforces through each holding
 7. the court’s reasoning
 8. dicta
 9. a statement of the relief granted or denied
o Opinions often begin with (1) a recitation of procedural events during the litigation that
have raised the issue decided by the court. Examples are motions, hearings, trial,
judgment, and appeal.
 seem at first confusing, you must be able to understand them because the
manner in which an issue is raised determines the method a court will use to
decide it.
 , even though both might require the court to consider the same point of law.
The procedural events add up to the case’s procedural posture at the time the
decision was made.
o the court will next describe (2) the pleaded events or the evidentiary events on which
the ruling is based.
 In litigation, parties allege facts in a pleading and then prove them with
evidence. The court has no other way of knowing what transpired between the
parties before the lawsuit began. A party’s pleadings and evidence tell a story
that favors that party. The other party’s pleadings and evidence tell a different
and contrary story
 As you read the court’s description of the pleadings and evidence, you can often
tell, even before reading the rest of the opinion, which party’s story persuaded
the court. Stories persuade.
  An effective lawyer can tell an effective story and tell it well through pleadings
or evidence or both
 A court might also set out (3) a statement of the issue or issues before the court
for decision and (4) a summary of the arguments made by each side, although
either or both are often only implied. A court will further state, or at least imply,
(5) the holding on each of the issues and (6) the rule or rules of law the court
enforces in making each holding, together with (7) the reasoning behind —
often called the rationale for — its decision. Somewhere in the opinion, the
court might place some (8) dicta. You’ll learn more about dicta in the next few
months, but for the moment think of it as discussion unnecessary to support a
holding and therefore not mandatory precedential authority.
 An opinion usually ends with (9) a statement of the relief granted or denied. If
the opinion is the decision of an appellate court, the relief may be an
affirmance, a reversal, or a reversal combined with a direction to the trial court
to proceed in a specified manner. If the opinion is from a trial court, the relief is
most commonly the granting or denial of a motion.
 An opinion announcing a court’s decision is called the court’s opinion or the
majority opinion.; If one or more of the judges involved in the decision don’t
agree with some aspect of the decision, the opinion might be accompanied by
one or more concurrences or dissents.
 A concurring judge agrees with the result the majority reached but would have
used different reasoning to justify that result. A dissenting judge disagrees with
both the result and the reasoning.
 Because concurrences and dissents are opinions, they contain some of the
elements of a court’s opinion. A concurring or dissenting judge might, for
example, describe procedural events, narrate pleaded or evidentiary events,
state issues, summarize arguments, and explain reasoning.
 The Interdependence of Facts, Issues, and Rules
o Of the remaining facts, some are merely related to the court’s thinking, while others
caused the court to come to its decision. This last group could be called the
determinative facts or the essential facts. They are essential to the court’s decision
because they determined the outcome. If they had been different, the decision would
have been different.
o The determinative facts lead to the rule of the case — the rule of law for which the case
stands as precedent. The most important goal of case analysis is discovering and
understanding that rule. Where several issues are raised together in a case, the court
must make several rulings and an opinion may thus stand for several rules.
How to Read a Judicial Opinion: A Guide for New Law Students - Professor Orin S. Kerr
 What’s in a Judicial Opinion?
o Judicial opinions (also known as legal opinions, legal decisions, or cases) are written
decisions authored by judges explaining how they resolved a particular legal dispute and
explaining their reasoning.
o Most legal opinions follow a simple formula that will seem odd to you at first, but will
quickly become second nature
 The Caption - title of the case
 The Case Citation - will find a legal citation that tells you the name of the court
that decided the case, the law book in which the opinion was published (and
therefore can be found), and also the year in which the court decided the case
 Author of the Opinion - name of the judge who authored the opinion.; On
occasion, the opinion will have the Latin phrase per curiam in place of the
judge’s name. This phrase means “by the court,” and generally means that the
opinion reflects a common view held by all of the court’s judges, rather than the
writings of a single judge.
o The Facts of the Case
 The first part of the body of the opinion is usually devoted to presenting the
facts of the case. In other words, what happened?
 the facts tell you the judge’s understanding of the case and what the judge
thought was an important aspect of the case that helped the judge reach the
decision.
 The “facts” of a case consist mostly of the events that occurred before the legal
case was filed in court, and that led to the filing of the case.
o The Law of the Case
 it will then discuss the law.
 This section of the opinion describes the legal principles that the judge will use
to decide the case and reach a particular outcome.
 the law is presented in two stages:
 first the opinion will discuss the general principles of law that are
relevant to the case given its facts,
 next the court will apply the law to the facts and reach the court’s
outcome.
 Finally, cases that you read in civil procedure will mostly interpret statutory law
and the Constitution.
 This is an application of the judicial practice of stare decisis, an abbreviation of a
Latin phrase meaning “That which has been already decided should remain
settled.” Other courts will rely on morality, fairness, or notions of justice to
justify their decisions. Many courts will mix and match, relying on several or
even all of these justifications
 Two important ingredients you should be looking for in the legal section of the
opinion are the holding of the case, if there is one, as well as any dicta the
 opinion may contain. The holding is the core legal principle that the case
represents.
 Dictum is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase “obiter dictum,” which means “a
remark by the way.” Dicta are statements in an opinion that are not actually
required to resolve the case before it.
 The distinction between the holding and dicta can be important because the
holding of a case is more important than dicta. In fact, you will often hear
lawyers try to minimize the importance of language in past decisions by
characterizing that language as “merely dicta.”
o The Disposition
 The disposition usually appears at the end of the main opinion, and tells you
what action the court is taking with the case.

o Concurring and/or Dissenting Opinions.

 Concurring and dissenting opinions (a.k.a. “concurrences” and “dissents”) are
opinions by judges who did not see entirely eye-to-eye with the other judges of
the court, and wish to express a slightly or even dramatically different view of
the case.
 In general, a concurring opinion is an opinion by a judge who would have
reached the same result as the majority, but for a different reason.
 Dissenting opinions are opinions by judges who disagree with the majority’s
result entirely. In most cases, dissenting opinions try to persuade the reader
that the majority’s decision was simply incorrect.
 What to Look For When You Read a Case
o 1) A careful understanding of the facts.
o 2) An understanding of the arguments that each party argued to the court.
o 3) An understanding of the result and reasoning of the majority opinion, as well as the
reasoning of any concurring and/or dissenting opinions.
o 4) The possible effect and scope of the court’s decision.
 Why Do Law Schools Use the Case Method?
o The Historical Reason - In short, we study real cases and disputes because real cases
and disputes historically have been the primary source of law.
o The Practical Reason: - A second reason we use the case method is that it can be hard to
understand a particular legal rule, and its merits as a matter of policy, without applying
the rule in the real world.
Session 3 – stare decisis, res judicata and law of the case
Stare Decisis
• Judicial interpretation of a statute and is of greater weight than that of an executive or
administrative officer in the construction of other statutes of similar import.

• It is an invaluable aid in the construction or interpretation of statutes of doubtful meaning.

• Stare decisis et non quieta movere – one should follow past precedents and should not disturb
what has been settled.

• Supreme Court has the constitutional duty not only of interpreting and applying the law in
accordance with prior doctrines but also of protecting society from the improvidence and
wantonness wrought by needless upheavals in such interpretations and applications

• In order that it will come within the doctrine of stare decisis, must be categorically stated on
an issue expressly raised by the parties; it must be a direct ruling, not merely an obiter dictum

• Obiter dictum – opinion expressed by a court upon some question of law which is not
necessary to the decision of the case before it; not binding as a precedent

• The principle presupposes that the facts of the precedent and the case to which it is applied
are substantially the same.

• Where the facts are dissimilar, then the principle of stare decisis does not apply.

• The rule of stare decisis is not absolute. It does not apply when there is a conflict between the
precedent and the law.

• The duty of the court is to forsake and abandon any doctrine or rule found to be in violation of
law in force

• Inferior courts as well as the legislature cannot abandon a precedent enunciated by the SC
except by way of repeal or amendment of the law itself

Res Judicata

 Doctrine that prevents re-litigation of a claim that has been fully considered and finally decided
in the courts.

Requisites of Res Judicata

1. Former judgment or order must be final and executory;

2. Court has jurisdiction over subject matter and parties;

3. Former judgment or order was on merits;

4. Identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between first and second action (TEST:
determine identity of cause of action) (FELS v. Province of Batangas, G.R. No. 168557, February 19,
2007).

Villena v Spouses Chavez

G.R. No. 148126 November 10, 2003
We stress that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it
will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.
Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be
applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be
different.
It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations,
like cases ought to be decided alike
SC
 the Petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is
OVERTURNED. Consequently, the Decisions of the MTC and the RTC of Angeles City are
REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs.

Facts:
 a Complaint for Illegal Detainer with Damages by respondents Chavex alleged that they are the
owners of four (4) parcels of land in Angeles City.
 These four (4) parcels of land were occupied and erected their homes by petitioner Villena by
mere permission and tolerance of the respondents
 All the [petitioners] are members of the Bagong Silang Phase III-C Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
The [respondents] allowed the [petitioners] and other members of the said homeowners’
association to continue occupying the subject lots and ultimately to acquire ownership of the
lots occupied, in consideration of a certain amount to be paid to the [respondents] as equity.
 The [respondents] further alleged that the other members of the said homeowners’ association
paid to the [respondents] their respective equity for their right to continue occupying and
ultimately acquiring ownership of the occupied lots. However, notwithstanding repeated
demands made upon the [petitioners], they have refused and failed without any justifiable
ground to pay their respective equity. In view of such failure to pay, the [petitioners] have
forfeited their right to continue occupying the lots in question. Formal demand letters were then
sent by registered mail to the [petitioners], wherein they were given a period of thirty (30) days
from receipt within which to vacate and remove their houses from the subject lots
 The [respondents] then prayed in their Complaint that the [petitioners] be ordered to vacate
and remove their houses from the lots currently occupied; that each of the [petitioners] be
ordered to pay the [respondents] P1,000.00 a month as reasonable rental for the use and
occupation of the lots starting from April 11, 1998 until they have finally vacated and removed
 their houses from said lots; and that the [petitioners] jointly and severally pay the [respondents]
P25,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages, P2,000.00 as appearance fee per hearing,
exemplary damages, and the costs of the suit.

MTC Angeles City

 a decision dismissing both the [respondents’] complaint and the [petitioners’] counter-claim, on
the ground that the filing of an ejectment case based on the alleged violation of the parties’
agreement which has not yet been rescinded is premature, and that it is beyond the
competence of the said court to act on the case, as rescission or specific performance is beyond
the jurisdiction of the said court.
RTC Angeles City
 rendered a decision affirming in toto the MTC judgment
CA
 The CA held that the right of petitioners to continue occupying the subject properties hinged on
their continued payment of the agreed amount as equity.
 Even after formal letters of demand to vacate the premises had been sent to them, however,
they still did not make any effort to pay their equity to protect their right to continue occupying
those lots.
 Thus, the appellate court ruled that their failure to pay made their occupancy unlawful, in
consequence of which they became subject to an ejectment suit.
 The CA rejected the contention of petitioners that they were protected by RA 7279. According
to the appellate court, there was no express declaration by the local government unit that the
parcels of land owned by respondents were to be used for socialized housing. Neither was there
proof of the allegation that they had applied therefor under the Community Mortgage Program
of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation under Section 31 of RA 7279. Besides, even
granting that petitioners were protected under RA 7279, they were still liable to pay
amortization or face eviction.
Issue: WON proper action filed filed by respondent (complaint for illegal detainer) is correct
Ruling:
 NO. as correctly pleaded by petitioners, a similar case had been decided by the CA in CA-GR SP
No. 58679, in which it ruled that the proper action should have been a complaint for rescission
or specific performance, not for illegal detainer. In that case, the same plaintiffs filed the same
charges against a different but similarly situated set of defendants.
 The appellate court ruled therein that there was an existing agreement or contract that
determined the nature of the parties’ relationship. When the CA Decision was elevated, this
Court denied the appeal for failure to show that a reversible error had been committed by the
appellate court. Thereafter, the Decision became final and executory on April 23, 2002
 as the relationship existing between the parties is not a lessor-lessee relationship but one that
emanated from the agreement between appellants and the Urban Land and Development
 Foundation, Inc., the so-called originator of the Bagong Silang Homeowners Association, Inc.,
the relief being sought then by appellants appears to be improper.
 if ever there was no payment of equity as provided for under the said agreement, the same
cannot be considered as non-payment of rentals. Thus, it cannot be a sufficient basis for filing an
ejectment case against appellees, the proper remedy being an action for rescission of contract
or specific performance.
Veloso vs CA
G.R. No. 116680 August 28, 1996
This is a petition for review on certiorari through which petitioners seek a reversal of the decision of
respondent Court of Appeals dismissing their petition to annul judgment rendered by the Regional Trial
Court of Baybay, Leyte, Branch 14, in Civil Case No. B-1043, for lack of merit.
Petitioners claim that the questioned decision of the trial court is inherently flawed because the issues
raised therein had already been resolved earlier in another case involving the same parties and subject
matter, and that a trial court has no power to countermand a decision of a co-equal court.
Facts:
 respondents Corsini Miraflor Avellana, Aureo Peñalosa Miraflor, Eddie Peñalosa Miraflor and
Douglas Peñalosa Miraflor filed a complaint for quieting of title with damages against
Nicolas Veloso Sr. and petitioners Nicolas Veloso Jr., Concepcion Veloso Patalinghug,
Eduardo Veloso, Ligaya Veloso Roa, Rafael Veloso, Emerenciana Veloso Cabigon, Domingo
Veloso and Emmanuel Veloso before the Regional Trial Court of Baybay, Leyte, docketed as
Civil Case No. B-1043
 The subject matter of the complaint was Lot No. 8422-F covered by TCT No. 22393 in the
name of Crispina Peñalosa Miraflor, deceased mother of respondents.
RTC :
 trial court rendered judgment (a) finding TCT No. T-22393 authentic, valid, indefeasible and
entitled to all faith and credence under Act 496; (b) declaring respondents absolute co-
owners in fee simple of Lot No. 8422-F; (c) directing petitioners or anyone of them in
possession of Lot No. 8422-F to deliver to respondents the physical and material possession
thereof together with all the improvements thereon; and, (d) ordering petitioners in solidum
to pay respondents P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and P2,000.00 as reimbursement for
litigation expenses
CA:
 affirmed the decision of the trial court
 respondent court likewise ruled against petitioners as it found that the controversy had
already been settled by this Court and that the contention that the trial court did not have
"any power or authority to amend, alter or modify the decision of a co-equal court, the then
Court of First Instance of Leyte, Br. III and Br. VIII," should have been raised in the previous
proceedings
 Petitioners rely on the decision of 9 January 1951 in Civil Case No. R-205 - which has already
become final and executory for lack of appeal by any of the parties, and on the decision of
 29 July 1969 in Civil Case No. B-122 which was affirmed by respondent court on 11
November 1974 and executed on 9 July 1975
 They allege that those decisions upheld their possession and ownership and of their parents
Nicolas Veloso Sr. and Emerenciana Peñalosa over 3/5 portion of Lot No. 8422, including the
1/5 portion representing the share of Crispina Peñalosa Miraflor (Lot No. 8422-F) which she
transferred to her parents by virtue of a deed of sale executed on 4 May 1948. Petitioners
thus claim that the trial court had absolutely no jurisdiction to amend, alter or modify those
final and executed decisions.
Issue:
WON CA committed an error in refusing to declare the decision of the trial court void for having
been rendered allegedly in violation of the doctrines of res judicata and the law of the case
Ruling:
 SC find no reversible error committed by respondent court.
 In Civil Case No. R-205, the plaintiff therein as administrator of the estate of Filomena Bermoy,
great grandmother of respondents, sought recovery of Lot No. 8422 from the children of
spouses Pedro de Veyra and Leopolda Valenzona. - trial court however dismissed the complaint
on the basis of its finding that Lot No. 8422 no longer formed part of the estate of Bermoy. Prior
to her death, Filomena Bermoy sold the land in question to a certain Gonzalo Varron who in turn
disposed of it in favor of spouses Pedro de Veyra and Leopolda Valenzona, so that on 2 March
1936 OCT No. 1652 was issued in their name.
 On the other hand, in Civil Case No. B-122 Nicolas Veloso et al., filed a complaint for
reconveyance of a portion of Lot No. 8422 with partition and damages against Proculo Peñalosa
and Lourdes P. Bibas - The trial court rendered judgment thereon against Proculo Peñalosa. But
the trial court also observed in passing that the share of Crispina P. Miraflor was already
purchased by the Veloso spouses in 1948
 Contrary to the circuitous assertion of petitioners that the rulings in Civil Cases Nos. R-205 and
B-122 constitute res judicata or the law of the case to Civil Case No. B-1043, it is the holding in
the latter case which is now a bar to the present proceeding under the same doctrines invoked
by them.
  In such cases, it is also immaterial that the two actions are based on different grounds, or
tried on different theories, or instituted for different purposes, and seek different reliefs.
 By the same token, whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal principle
or decision continues to be the law of the case between the same parties in the same case,
whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was
predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court
Law of the case
 This principle is defined as "a term applied to an established rule that when an appellate court
passes on a question and remands the cause to the lower court for further proceedings, the
question there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal.
 Principle that once an issue has been decided by one judge or panel of judges in a case, it will
not be reconsidered if the case comes before new judge or panel at the same level;
 Except in special circumstances, the subsequent judges will adhere to the prior decision as the
“law of the case” even if they disagree with it.

Agustin v CA
G.R. No. 107846 April 18, 1997
This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 246841
which affirmed the order of Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Manila, in Civil Case No. 84804
Facts:
 dispute stemmed from an unpaid promissory note executed by petitioner Leovillo C. Agustin in
favor of ERM Commercial; The note was payable in monthly installments and secured by a
chattel mortgage over an Isuzu diesel truck, both of which were subsequently assigned to
private respondent Filinvest Finance Corporation
 When petitioner defaulted in paying the installments, private respondent demanded from him
the payment of the entire balance or, in lieu thereof, the possession of the mortgaged vehicle.
Neither payment nor surrender was made.
 private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional Trial. Court of Manila, Branch 26 (RTC
Branch 26) against petitioner praying for the issuance of a writ of replevin or, in the alternative,
for the. payment of P32,723.97 plus interest at the rate of 14% per annum from due date until
fully paid
After Foreclosure
 Private respondent subsequently filed a "supplemental complaint" claiming additional
reimbursement worth P8,852.76 as value of replacement parts7 and for expenses incurred in
transporting the mortgaged vehicle from Cagayan to Manila.
 In response, petitioner moved to dismiss the supplemental complaint arguing that RTC Branch
26 had already lost jurisdiction over the case because of the earlier extra-jurisdicial foreclosure
of the mortgage.
RTC
 thereafter, a writ of replevin was issued by RTC Branch 26. By virtue thereof, private respondent
acquired possession of the vehicle.
  Upon repossession, the latter discovered that the vehicle was no longer in running condition and
that several parts were missing which private respondent replaced. The vehicle was then
foreclosed and sold at public auction.
After Foreclosure
 The lower court granted the motion and the case was dismissed.

CA
 Private respondent elevated the matter to the appellate court, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 56718-
R, which set aside the order of dismissal and ruled that repossession expenses incurred by
private respondent should be reimbursed.9 This decision became final and executory, hence the
case was accordingly remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 40 (RTC Branch 40)
for reception of evidence to determine the amount due from petitioner.
 Petitioner contends that. the award of repossession expenses to private respondent as
mortgagee is "contrary to the letter, intent and spirit of Article 1484 13 of the Civil Code". 14 He
asserts that private respondent's repossession expenses have been amply covered by the
foreclosure of the chattel mortgage, hence he could no longer be held liable.
Issue: WON the petitioner is liable to pay the repossession expenses incurred by private respondent
Ruling:
 YES
 Petitioner's contentions, we note, were previously rejected by respondent court in its decision in
CA-G.R No. 56718-R the dispositive portion of which provides as follows:
o WHEREFORE, the order dismissing the case is hereby set aside and the case is remanded
to the lower court for reception of evidence of 'expenses properly incurred in effecting
seizure of the chattel (and) of recoverable attorney's fees in prosecuting the action for
replevin" as "repossession expenses" prayed for in the supplemental complaint, without
pronouncement as to costs.
 It is clear, therefore, that the appellate court had already settled the propriety of awarding
repossession expenses in favor of private respondent. The remand of the case to RTC Branch 40
was for the sole purpose of threshing out the correct amount of expenses and not for
relitigating the accuracy of the award.
 the findings of RTC Branch 40, as affirmed by the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 24684, were
confined to the appreciation of evidence relative to the repossession expenses for the query or
issue passed upon by the respondent court in CA-G.R. No. 56718-R (propriety of the award for
repossession expenses) has become the "law of the case".
 Having exactly the same parties and issues, the decision in the former appeal (CA-G.R. No.
56718-R) is now the established and controlling rule. Petitioner may not therefore be allowed in
a subsequent appeal (CA-G.R. No. 24684) and in this petition to resuscitate and revive formerly
settled issues. Judgment of courts should attain finality at some point in time, as in this case,
otherwise, there will be no end to litigation.
Session 4 – parts of a decision
Velarde v Social Justice Society
G.R. No. 159357 April 28, 2004
A decision that does not conform to the form and substance required by the Constitution and the law is
void and deemed legally inexistent. To be valid, decisions should comply with the form, the procedure
and the substantive requirements laid out in the Constitution, the Rules of Court and relevant
circulars/orders of the Supreme Court. For the guidance of the bench and the bar, the Court hereby
discusses these forms, procedures and requirements.
Facts:
 SJS filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief ("SJS Petition") before the RTC-Manila against Velarde
sought the interpretation of several constitutional provisions,8 specifically on the separation of
church and state; and a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the acts of religious
leaders endorsing a candidate for an elective office, or urging or requiring the members of their
flock to vote for a specified candidate.
Parts of a Decision

In general, the essential parts of a good decision consist of the following: (1) statement of the case; (2)
statement of facts; (3) issues or assignment of errors; (4) court ruling, in which each issue is, as a rule,
separately considered and resolved; and, finally, (5) dispositive portion. The ponente may also opt to
include an introduction or a prologue as well as an epilogue, especially in cases in which controversial or
novel issues are involved.98

An introduction may consist of a concise but comprehensive statement of the principal factual or legal
issue/s of the case. In some cases -- particularly those concerning public interest; or involving
complicated commercial, scientific, technical or otherwise rare subject matters -- a longer introduction
or prologue may serve to acquaint readers with the specific nature of the controversy and the issues
involved. An epilogue may be a summation of the important principles applied to the resolution of the
issues of paramount public interest or significance. It may also lay down an enduring philosophy of law
or guiding principle.

Let us now, again for the guidance of the bench and the bar, discuss the essential parts of a good
decision.

1. Statement of the Case

The Statement of the Case consists of a legal definition of the nature of the action. At the first instance,
this part states whether the action is a civil case for collection, ejectment, quieting of title, foreclosure of
mortgage, and so on; or, if it is a criminal case, this part describes the specific charge -- quoted usually
from the accusatory portion of the information -- and the plea of the accused. Also mentioned here are
whether the case is being decided on appeal or on a petition for certiorari, the court of origin, the case
number in the trial court, and the dispositive portion of the assailed decision.

In a criminal case, the verbatim reproduction of the criminal information serves as a guide in
determining the nature and the gravity of the offense for which the accused may be found culpable. As a
rule, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime different from or graver than that charged.

Also, quoting verbatim the text of the information is especially important when there is a question on
the sufficiency of the charge, or on whether qualifying and modifying circumstances have been
adequately alleged therein.

To ensure that due process is accorded, it is important to give a short description of the proceedings
regarding the plea of the accused. Absence of an arraignment, or a serious irregularity therein, may
render the judgment void, and further consideration by the appellate court would be futile. In some
instances, especially in appealed cases, it would also be useful to mention the fact of the appellants’
detention, in order to dispose of the preliminary query -- whether or not they have abandoned their
appeal by absconding or jumping bail.

Mentioning the court of origin and the case number originally assigned helps in facilitating the
consolidation of the records of the case in both the trial and the appellate courts, after entry of final
judgment.

Finally, the reproduction of the decretal portion of the assailed decision informs the reader of how the
appealed case was decided by the court a quo.

2. Statement of Facts

There are different ways of relating the facts of the case. First, under the objective or reportorial
method, the judge summarizes -- without comment -- the testimony of each witness and the contents of
each exhibit. Second, under the synthesis method, the factual theory of the plaintiff or prosecution and
then that of the defendant or defense is summarized according to the judge’s best light. Third, in the
subjective method, the version of the facts accepted by the judge is simply narrated without explaining
what the parties’ versions are. Finally, through a combination of objective and subjective means, the
testimony of each witness is reported and the judge then formulates his or her own version of the facts.

In criminal cases, it is better to present both the version of the prosecution and that of the defense, in
the interest of fairness and due process. A detailed evaluation of the contentions of the parties must
follow. The resolution of most criminal cases, unlike civil and other cases, depends to a large extent on
the factual issues and the appreciation of the evidence. The plausibility or the implausibility of each
version can sometimes be initially drawn from a reading of the facts. Thereafter, the bases of the court
in arriving at its findings and conclusions should be explained.

On appeal, the fact that the assailed decision of the lower court fully, intelligently and correctly resolved
all factual and legal issues involved may partly explain why the reviewing court finds no reason to
reverse the findings and conclusions of the former. Conversely, the lower court’s patent misappreciation
of the facts or misapplication of the law would aid in a better understanding of why its ruling is reversed
or modified.

In appealed civil cases, the opposing sets of facts no longer need to be presented. Issues for resolution
usually involve questions of law, grave abuse of discretion, or want of jurisdiction; hence, the facts of
the case are often undisputed by the parties. With few exceptions, factual issues are not entertained in
non-criminal cases. Consequently, the narration of facts by the lower court, if exhaustive and clear, may
be reproduced; otherwise, the material factual antecedents should be restated in the words of the
reviewing magistrate.

In addition, the reasoning of the lower court or body whose decision is under review should be laid out,
in order that the parties may clearly understand why the lower court ruled in a certain way, and why the
reviewing court either finds no reason to reverse it or concludes otherwise.

3. Issues or Assignment of Errors

Both factual and legal issues should be stated. On appeal, the assignment of errors, as mentioned in the
appellant’s brief, may be reproduced in toto and tackled seriatim, so as to avoid motions for
reconsideration of the final decision on the ground that the court failed to consider all assigned errors
that could affect the outcome of the case. But when the appellant presents repetitive issues or when the
assigned errors do not strike at the main issue, these may be restated in clearer and more coherent
terms.

Though not specifically questioned by the parties, additional issues may also be included, if deemed
important for substantial justice to be rendered. Note that appealed criminal cases are given de novo
review, in contrast to noncriminal cases in which the reviewing court is generally limited to issues
specifically raised in the appeal. The few exceptions are errors of jurisdiction; questions not raised but
necessary in arriving at a just decision on the case; or unassigned errors that are closely related to those
properly assigned, or upon which depends the determination of the question properly raised.

4. The Court’s Ruling

This part contains a full discussion of the specific errors or issues raised in the complaint, petition or
appeal, as the case may be; as well as of other issues the court deems essential to a just disposition of
the case. Where there are several issues, each one of them should be separately addressed, as much as
practicable. The respective contentions of the parties should also be mentioned here. When procedural
questions are raised in addition to substantive ones, it is better to resolve the former preliminarily.

5. The Disposition or Dispositive Portion

In a criminal case, the disposition should include a finding of innocence or guilt, the specific crime
committed, the penalty imposed, the participation of the accused, the modifying circumstances if any,
and the civil liability and costs. In case an acquittal is decreed, the court must order the immediate
release of the accused, if detained, (unless they are being held for another cause) and order the director
of the Bureau of Corrections (or wherever the accused is detained) to report, within a maximum of ten
(10) days from notice, the exact date when the accused were set free.

In a civil case as well as in a special civil action, the disposition should state whether the complaint or
petition is granted or denied, the specific relief granted, and the costs. The following test of
completeness may be applied. First, the parties should know their rights and obligations. Second, they
should know how to execute the decision under alternative contingencies. Third, there should be no
need for further proceedings to dispose of the issues. Fourth, the case should be terminated by
according the proper relief. The "proper relief" usually depends upon what the parties seek in their
pleadings. It may declare their rights and duties, command the performance of positive prestations, or
order them to abstain from specific acts. The disposition must also adjudicate costs.

The foregoing parts need not always be discussed in sequence. But they should all be present and
plainly identifiable in the decision. Depending on the writer’s character, genre and style, the language
should be fresh and free-flowing, not necessarily stereotyped or in a fixed form; much less highfalutin,
hackneyed and pretentious. At all times, however, the decision must be clear, concise, complete and
correct.