PAHALAWAN, DAMHAR

1-D

Final Exam / Requirement

Legal Research and Writing
San Beda University
College of Law
December 11, 2023

INSTRUCTION: This exam is individual work. Submit the soft

copy of your output to your beadle. Your beadle will be solely
responsible for submitting the collected works for your class
on or before 10:00 PM of December 20, 2023

1. Discuss briefly what are the primary and secondary

legal sources. Give examples of each.

Constitutions, judicial decisions, legislative enactments,

and administrative rules and regulations are all examples
of primary legal sources. All of these are concrete
representations of the law. The core components of the
legal system are established by these sources. They
delineate the framework of governance, the dynamics of
the relationship between the state and its citizens, as well
as the inherent rights and obligations that govern society.
For example, the Constitution of the Philippines is the
highest legal authority in the Philippines. It outlines the
fundamental rights of citizens and the broad framework
for the formation of the government. In the same vein,
statutes or laws originate from bodies such as the
Philippine Congress. Some notable examples of these
include the Civil Code of the Philippines, the Revised
Penal Code, and the Labor Code. Additionally, in
situations that need prompt action, the President has the
authority to issue Presidential Decrees. One example of
this is Presidential Decree No. 1081, which declared
Martial Law in the year 1972. Judicial decisions,
sometimes known as case law, are also extremely
important, particularly those that are handed down by
the Supreme Court. Not only do these rulings interpret
 statutes, but they also establish precedents that are
legally binding and serve to govern subsequent
interpretations and applications of the law.

Secondary legal sources, on the other hand, are

considered to be interpretative and analytical tools that
delve deeper into the intricacies of primary legal texts.
They offer an additional layer of comprehension,
contextualizing and explaining the complexity that are
inherent in the legal system. Among these secondary
sources are legal commentaries and treatises that were
written by professionals, academics, and practitioners.
These materials provide profound insights into particular
areas of the law. In addition to this, legal encyclopedias
offer extensive overviews that detailed a variety of legal
themes, concepts, and doctrines. Law journals and other
legal periodicals contribute to the enrichment of
academic discourse by spreading research, analyses, and
conversations on contemporary legal issues and
developments. Legal experts and researchers who are
traversing the intricate tapestry of Philippine
jurisprudence might benefit from digest collections and
legal annotations since they curate and summarize
significant court decisions, statutes, and legal concepts.
This makes it easy for everyone to access and
comprehend the information.

2. Based on the lecture on Practical Tips/Rules in

Persuasive Legal Writing, reflect on the three (3) of
these tips/rules and why they are significant to you
as a future lawyer.

As an individual deeply committed to the aspiration of

becoming a lawyer, I firmly believe in adhering to three
cardinal principles that are foundational pillars in the
realm of legal writing and advocacy. Each of these
principles not only underscores the quintessential
attributes requisite for a proficient lawyer but also serves
as a beacon, guiding one towards unparalleled excellence
in the legal profession. Foremost among these guidelines
is the imperative to "Prepare thoroughly and carefully
before writing." Delving into the intricacies of the law
demands an unwavering commitment to exhaustive
 study and understanding. It becomes incumbent upon us
to immerse ourselves comprehensively in the nuances of
every legal quandary, ensuring a meticulous analysis
that encompasses pertinent laws, seminal cases, and
established precedents. By internalizing this principle, I
pledge to accord every legal issue entrusted to me the
reverence, diligence, and meticulous attention it
unequivocally warrants. Furthermore, within the
intricate tapestry of legal discourse, the maxim "Cite
laws, cases, and other sources accurately" resonates
profoundly. In the legal arena, where precision and
fidelity to truth are paramount, the accuracy of citations
serves as a testament to one's respect for the
jurisprudential framework, historical legal adjudications,
and scholarly contributions shaping legal dialogue. This
dedication to exactitude epitomizes intellectual integrity,
moral rectitude, and an unwavering pursuit of justice
predicated upon a holistic and precise comprehension of
legal tenets. Concomitantly, the aphorism stressing the
importance of "Being extra-careful with grammar and
spelling" transcends mere linguistic proficiency. Effective
communication in law hinges upon clarity, precision, and
credibility. Even minor lapses in grammar or spelling can
obfuscate intent, undermine credibility, and detract from
the persuasiveness of one's arguments. Embracing
linguistic rigor, I aspire to elevate the caliber of my
discourse, ensuring lucidity, cogency, and adherence to
the esteemed standards intrinsic to the legal profession.
In summation, meticulous planning, impeccable
citations, and unwavering linguistic diligence constitute
the triad of principles pivotal for any aspiring lawyer.
Upholding these tenets with unwavering dedication,
diligence, and integrity, I endeavor to navigate the
labyrinthine corridors of the legal system adeptly,
championing justice and upholding the sanctity of the
rule of law.

3. Draft a Legal Memorandum (not exceeding 5 pages)

justifying your position/arguments/claims/defenses
using Philippine sources including but not limited to
laws, statutes, jurisprudence, etc. Furthermore, you
must footnote your sources using the relevant
citation formats used and adopted by the Supreme
Court in its published decisions. Observe the Efficient
 Use of Paper Rule (A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC) requirements
as previously discussed.

3.1 In a murder trial, a witness called by the prosecution

will testify that the victim (the wife of the physician-
defendant) had said to a nurse, "My husband has poisoned
me." You are the Judge assigned to this case. Draft a brief
legal memorandum ruling on the admissibility of the
testimony. (See Attached Annex A)

3.2 Recently, during the hearing of the House of

Representatives' Committee on Legislative Franchises, "Ka
Eric", a resource person and anchor of SMNI Broadcasting
Corp., was cited in contempt for his deliberate refusal to
disclose the source of his information as to the purported
multi-billion travel expenses of the House Speaker.
According to "Ka Eric", his refusal to reveal his source is
protected by the Sotto Law (RA No. 53). However, the
congressmen disagreed and insist that "Ka Eric" is not
covered by the Sotto Law. Draft a brief legal memorandum
explaining and justifying whether you agree or disagree
with the House Committee's resolution citing "Ka Eric" in
contempt of the House of Representatives. (See Attached
Annex B)
ANNEX A

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 001
ZAMBOANGA CITY

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 001
FOR: MURDER
-versus-

DR. JUAN DELA CRUZ,

Accused.

MEMORANDUM

The Court, having diligently and careful consideration of

the arguments that were offered by both the prosecution
and the defense about the admissibility of the testimony
concerning the claimed dying declaration of the deceased
victim, Ms. Maria Dela Cruz, the Court has decided to
issue the following judgment, which is comprehensive in
nature:

FACTS:
An attempt is being made by the prosecution to present a
declaration of dying that is allegedly made by Ms. Maria
Dela Cruz. The prosecution claims that she told a nurse,
"My husband has poisoned me." A statement of this
nature is extremely helpful in determining whether or not
 the accused, Dr. Juan Dela Cruz, is guilty of the charges
against him.

ISSUES:
Whether the testimony concerning Ms. Maria Dela Cruz's
alleged dying declaration is admissible as an exception to
the hearsay rule.
Whether the essential elements for a statement to qualify
as a dying declaration are satisfied in the present case.

RULING:
Doctrine of Dying Declaration:
The Supreme Court has established t that for a
statement to be admitted as a dying declaration, the
declarant must have had a full awareness of impending
death and that the statement pertains to the cause and
surrounding circumstances of such demise1.

Spontaneity and Credibility:

The spontaneity of Ms. Dela Cruz's statement, as well as
the settings in which it was made, are two factors that
determine how reliable it is. the Court stressed how
important it is to evaluate the circumstances that
surrounded the making of the statement, including the
declarant's belief that their death was impending.
Because of its spontaneity, its probative value is given
more credibility2.

Relevance, Materiality, and Probativeness:

It is of the utmost importance to emphasize the
statement's relevancy while determining whether or not it
is admissible. The relevance of the present statement
cannot be denied, especially in light of the fact that the
Supreme Court acknowledged the significance of

1 People v. Teehankee, Jr., G.R. No. 111206, October 6, 1995

2 People v. Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 131895, April 12, 2000
 comments of this kind in clarifying the circumstances
and motivations that led to the death of this victim3.

CONCLUSION:
This Court has determined that there is NO
IMPEDIMENT TO THE ADMISSION of Ms. Maria Dela
Cruz's supposed deathbed declaration after conducting
an exhaustive review and taking into consideration
relevant jurisprudence at the same time. Its admissibility
is confirmed by the fact that it is consistent with well-
established legal principles and the precedents that are
pertinent to those principles.

SO ORDERED.

DAMHAR K. PAHALAWAN
Regional Trial Court
Branch 001
Zamboanga City

3 People v. Rosare, G.R. No. 129064, February 12, 2004

ANNEX B

MEMORANDUM

TO : COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FROM : DAMHAR K. PAHALAWAN
RE : ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY OF
“KA ERIC” UNDER SOTTO LAW (RA NO.
53)
DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2023
_____________________________________________________________

A delicate equilibrium exists between the constitutionally

guaranteed freedom of the press and the legal duties that
those who are called to appear at parliamentary hearings
have. The topic at hand concerns this delicate equilibrium. In
accordance with the Sotto Law (RA No. 53), the purpose of this
issue is to address the question of whether or not "Ka Eric" is
protected from the disclosure of his sources during the
hearings of the Committee on Legislative Franchises.

FACTS:
"Ka Eric," one of the anchors of Sunshine Media Network
Internationa (SMNI) Broadcasting Corp., was questioned by
the Committee on Legislative Franchises during an
investigation session. The inquiry was directed at the origin of
the information that he had obtained regarding the alleged
extensive travel expenses incurred by the House Speaker. He
chose to conceal the identity of his informant, using the
protective ambit of the Sotto Law (RA No. 53), in order to
assert his journalistic integrity and rights. "Ka Eric" explained
his decision. As a consequence of this, the Committee resorted
to committing contempt against him, which sparked a
discussion about the law.

ISSUES:
Whether "Ka Eric" is enveloped within the protective shield of
the Sotto Law (RA No. 53) given his refusal to disclose his
source.
The extent and scope of the constitutional safeguards on the
freedom of the press, particularly in compelling situations
such as legislative inquiries.

DISCUSSION:
A. The Protective Ambit of the Sotto Law (RA No. 53)
The Sotto Law, also known as Republic Act No. 53, is a
legislative edict that was enacted with the intention of
strengthening the journalistic profession. Its purpose is to
provide a protective cloak to journalists and media
practitioners, thereby preventing them from disclosing their
secret sources1.
The Supreme Court reaffirms that the preservation of sources
and journalistic integrity are of the utmost importance2. This
constitutional principle is embodied in the Sotto Law (RA No.
53), which guarantees journalists the freedom to carry out
their responsibilities without apprehension of reprisal or
exposure.

B. Constitutional Anchorage of Press Freedom

Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which
is fundamental to our democratic ethos, guarantees the
freedom of the press, speech, and expression. The purpose of
this constitutional mandate is to cultivate a setting in which
the media can function without excessive bias, thereby
guaranteeing that the general public is well-informed3.
With the insight that they possessed; the people who drafted
our Constitution understood that the press plays an essential
part in the functioning of a healthy democracy. Any attempt to
restrict or infringe upon this fundamental right must be
subjected to stringent assessment, particularly when it is set
against the goals of legislative initiatives.

1 Republic Act No. 53 (Sotto Law), Section 1.

2 Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008.
3 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 4
C. Intersection of Rights and Obligations
In the process of analyzing the current situation, "Ka Eric" did
not merely invoke the Sotto Law (RA No. 53) in a haphazard
manner; rather, he did so in accordance with the professional
and legal duties that are intrinsic to journalism. He is, in
essence, preserving the holy foundations of press freedom,
which are strengthened by both statutory and constitutional
imprimaturs, by refusing to identify the source with which he
obtained the information.

CONCLUSION:
"Ka Eric" is securely rooted within the protecting embrace of
the Sotto Law (RA No. 53), as is made abundantly obvious by
the comprehensive examination of the issues, legal
frameworks, and precedents. This is an unmistakable fact. In
addition to infringing upon his rights, any attempt to violate
this safeguard would also be a violation of the fundamental
principles that our Constitution is based on.