FUNDAMENTALS

OF LEGAL
WRITING
 TOPICS
 Facts of a case
 Random notes versus summary
 Facts seen through the issue
 Cluttered facts
 Relevant facts extracted
 Facts set in sequence
 Writing exercises
GETTING AT THE FACTS OF THE
CASE
Almost always, legal writing
stands on two legs: the facts and
the laws involved in the case;
and pre-work always starts with
getting the facts right.
 FACTS OF A CASE
When you study the facts of a case, you should not leave them
until you have come to a complete understanding of what the case
is abut from every angle. When you are able to examine the
position of the opposite side just as you have examined that of
your client, you would be able to tell the latter that you know
more about his case than he does. You short-change your client
when you casually read the facts from your source materials
without truly understanding and absorbing their contents. Deep
concentration and absorption is required of every good
preparation for a case.
 RANDOM NOTES VERSUS SUMMARY
One way to study case materials is to make short
random notes of the facts of the case that you consider
important as you go over them. This is a good practice.
But purely random notes do not give you the complete
picture. Because they are random, they are often
uncorrelated and are, therefore, useful only for work done
in one sitting. When you set aside your work return to it
after a long duration, your random notes would have lost
their correct meaning and you have to start all over
again. You would never be able to use these incomplete
notes as a permanent catalogue of the facts that you
want to go back to repeatedly at various stages of the
 What you need is systematically prepared
notes that adequately capture the entire factual
terrain of the case, with the important points
properly marked out. Studies in some English
colleges show that there is a better way than
taking random notes for absorbing complex or
difficult texts or written materials.
 It is summarizing. You can best
understand and absorb written
materials when you summarize theirs
contents. You summary serves as a
detailed map in your hand, able to
guide you in negotiating your way
through the dispute involved.
 Summarizing to compress the information you need,
forces you to search your materials for what is important.
Its compels you to toss an item of fact over in you mind,
assess its importance to the issues in the case, and decide
whether to keep it in or throw it out of your summary.
When you come to an item of fact and ask yourself,
“What is the signifiacance of this fact to this case?” you
begin to wonder. Then, all your accumulated knowledge
and experience bear on that item of fact and, usually,
your mind produces the right answer.
 FACTS SEEN THROUGH THE ISSUE
When handling a new case, whatever stage you may
find it, you need to go over the materials very quickly
and determine preliminary the principal issue or issues
involved in the case. That is your key to pre-work. Only
when you make a good job of extracting the relevant facts
from your materials.
In a classroom experiment, the professor asked the
students to do pre-work by carefully reading the
following facts about the case.
 THE BEERS WAR
Atlas Brewery Company discovered that distributors of San
Manuel Brewery in Metro Manila had in their warehouses
hundreds of cases of empty beer bottles owned by Atlas
Brewery. The distributors of San Manuel beer apparently
bought the empty bottles from retailers to reduce the volume of
sales of Atlas beer in their areas. The San Manuel beer
distributors claimed, on the other hand, that they merely
retaliated against Atlas beer distributors who had been buying
and destroying the empty bottles of San Manuel beer in their
areas.
 A law student, Fred Sanchez, complained that
when he drank beer with friends one evening in
June at a restaurant near his school, he found a
cockroach in the bottle of San Manuel beer that he
drunk from. He vomited upon discovery and
suffered anxiety over fear that he would get sick.
He got angry with the restaurant owner for serving
the beer and threw the bottle with the pest in it at
him, causing injury on the owner’s head.
 The restaurant owner blamed San Manuel
Brewery for the incident and sued it. Sane Manuel
Brewery, on the other hand, blamed Atlas Brewery
and its distributors for tampering with its products.
Fred Sanchez and his friends created a lot of noise
about poisoned San Manuel beer products and
initiated a boycott of those products. Their action
found them friends from among the Atlas Brewery
distributors.
 After the students read the above, they were asked
to write in one sentence a comprehensive summary of
what the case is all about. They were to complete the
sentence: “ The case is about …’’. Stop reading after
this paragraph for a moment and try to complete the
sentence yourself without re-reading the facts. “The
case is about….’’
The students gave a variety of answers but most of
them gave the equivalent of the following summaries:
1. The case is abut the struggle between San Manuel
Brewery and Atlas Beer Company over the distribution
of their competing products.
2. The case is about how fierce competition in beer
distribution could be very ugly.
3. The case is about a law student’s crusade against
unsafe products that come out of the market.
4. The case is about tampering with bottled products and
the dangers it presents.
 Actually, the facts above spoke of only
one “case” ever having developed among
the parties involved. This is the lawsuit
that the restaurant owner filed against San
Manuel Brewery for the injury he suffered
owner filed against San Manuel Brewery
for the injury he suffered in the hands of
an outraged customer whom he served
with a pest-laden bottle of beer. Did you
get it right?
Do not be discouraged if you did not. Very few students
perceived this detail because they dis not know, when they
read the article, what was expected of them.
The point in the exercise is that, not knowing what they are
looking for, different people would tend to get different
impressions out of the same material that they have read.
Only after reading the material did the students learn that
they were to state what the case “ case” was about.
Just how do you make a complete summary from raw data?
One way is to take out the non-essential facts from your
written materials like contracts, deeds, letters, records, books,
testimonies, or sworn statements. Cross out those non-
essential facts, leaving only the essential ones on the page of
each document or paper.
Consider this problem asked in a bar examination. The examiner probably
picked up the facts from the syllabus of the case and so indiscriminately
copied a lot of the details in it that are not essential to the problem.

Section 10 of ordinance no. 105 of Tagaytay City provides that at

least 5% of the total area of any memorial park established within its
jurisdiction shall be set aside for charity burial of its pauper residents
and that no permit to establish, operate, and maintain a private
memorial park shall be granted without the applicant’s conformity or
agreeing to such condition. The City argues that it is within its
powers to pass said ordinance; and that the portion taken is for public
use, the same being intended for paupers pursuant to its duty to
provide for the health and safety of its inhabitants.
 Discuss the constitutionally of said ordinance.
The challenge is to make a short summary of the
above by crossing out the non-essential facts. Surely,
you would be quite reckless if you just wield a pen and
cross out every word from the text that you fancy as
having of no use to you. What you need is a more
precise pruning knife. As already stated, that pruning
knife is nothing else but your understanding of
the principal issue that the case presents. Only
when you know that issue or at least have a preliminary
idea of what it is, could you do a correct job of cutting
away useless data to get to the essential facts you
need.
Fortunately, in the above problem, the bar examiner himself states
the principal issue for you: he wants you to “discuss the
constitutionality of the ordinance.” i.e., “whatever or not it violates
the right that it seeks to regulate----the right of the owner to his
land.” Now, use this issue to prune away the facts that are not
relevant to it. Consider the first sentence of the problem.
Section 10 of Ordinance No. 105 of Tagaytay City provides
that at least 5% of the total area of any memorial park established
within its jurisdiction shall be set aside for charity burial of its
pauper residents and that no permit to establish, operate, and
maintain a private memorial park shall be granted without the
applicant’s conformity or agreeing to such condition.
Surely, the particular number of the ordinance involved
(Ordinance No. 105) the particular number of the section of the
section of the ordinance (Section 10), or the particular place
where it was enacted (Tagaytay City) are not relevant to the
constitutionality of the ordinance. You will also note that some
details of the quoted problem are superfluous. For instance, if
the lots taken were to be “ for charity burial,” it would be
superfluous to say that it would benefit “pauper residents.”
Also, in the phrase “ no permit to establish, operate, and
maintain” are superfluous because “to operate” assumes these
two terms.
The above sentence needed sixty-three words to describe the facts of
the problem. By crossing out the unneeded facts, what remains could
be summarized in only twenty-six words, less than half the original
number. Thus, rid of irrelevant details, your summary should read:

Section 10 of Ordinance No. 105 of Tagaytay City

provides that at least 5% of the total area of any memorial
park established within its jurisdiction shall be set aside for
charity burial of its pauper residents and that no permit to
establish, operate, and maintain a private memorial park
shall be granted without the applicant’s conformity or
agreeing to such condition.
 In practice, however, crossing out of portions of the documents
will damage such documents and render them useless for other
purposes. Quite often, you need to preserve the documents in their
original state. Your alternative is to go over them, identify those
facts that are essentials to your understanding of the issues in the
case, and put those facts in your outline.
Section 10 of Ordinance No. 105 of Tagaytay City provides
that at least 5% of the total area of any memorial park
established within its jurisdiction shall be set aside for charity
burial of its pauper residents and that no permit to establish,
operate, and maintain a private memorial park shall be granted
without the applicant’s conformity or agreeing to such
condition.
Put together, the extracted facts should read like this:
The ordinance requires memorial parks to give away to the poor
5% of their land area as a condition to being granted permits to
operate.
With the facts summarized in their barest essentials, it is now
far easier for you to see the problem in its simplest form. Do you
agree? You will no longer be distracted by unimportant and
obtrusive facts. Making a summary of the facts of the case you are
tasked to write about will do the same for you.
CLUTTERED FACTS
As you have seen, it is only when you know the principal issue
or at least have a preliminary idea of what it is about that you
could do a correct job of making a summary of the facts of your
case. Consider the following testimonies, some conflicting, given
by witnesses in an actual rape case. The names have, of course,
been changed. To make the example simple for study, the
transcripts have been edited and the cross- examination by
opposing counsels dispensed with. Go over it once to enable you to
get a sense of what the issue or issues are between the parties.
Transcript of stenographic notes
October 8
(Abridged and edited for study)
COURT STAFF: (After swearing in the witness) State your name and
personal circumstances.
WITNESS: I am Julia Torres, eighteen years old, single, and a resident of
Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas.
PROSECUTOR: With the Court’s permission. Do you know Ronald Galang,
the accused in this case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why do you know him?
A. He raped me.
Q. Where did this happen?
A. It happened on the rice field near Mario’s house.
Q. How did Ronald rape you?
A. I struggled to get free but he pointed the knife at my side
and threatened to stab me if I called for help or persisted in fighting
back.
Q. So what did you do?
R. Out of fear, I gave in and he raped me
Q. What did you do after Ronald raped you?
R. I kept the matter to myself for a while.
Q. Why?
A. Because I was afraid of the trouble that will happen if my
parents and brothers found out.
They loved me so.
Q. For how long did you keep the matter to yourself?
A. After two days of worrying and feeling bad, I finally told my
aunt about it and she in turn told my parents.
Q. What is the reaction of your parents?
A. They were quite furious and wanted to take the matter into
their own hands but cooler heads prevailed.
Q. So what did you after that?
A. I went to police to complain.
Q. Is that all that you did?
A. I also submitted myself to medical examination.
Q. When did Ronald rape you?
A. He raped me on June 12 at 7 p.m
Q. How did you meet Ronald on June 12?
A. I went to the house of Celia in our barrio to attend a wedding
party and I saw him there.
Q. Do you have any relationship with Ronad?
A. None. He was only my suitor.
Q. What were your feelings during the party?
A. I was in high spirit because I met a lot of friends and had a good time.
Q. Do you recall any unusual thing that happened at that wedding party?
A. Someone exploded firecrackers nearby and this caused a scare for a while.
Q. You said that you saw your suitor, Ronald, at the party. Did you have
occasion to talk to each other.
A. He wanted to talk to me but I ignored him because I disliked him for a suitor.
In fact, I stayed away from him.
Q. What happened after you ignore him?
A. The married couple danced after supper and people joined in.
Q. What did you do after dancing?
A. At 11 p.m. I took leave to go and started to walk home alone in the moonlight.
Q. Did any thing unusual happen during your walk home?
A. When I was about fifty meters from Mario’s house, Ronald came behind me
and requested that he walk me home.
Q. What was you reaction to him?
A. I really did not like him. I declined and doubled my steps.
Q. So what happened after you walked faster?
A. Ronald caught my arm and wrestled me to the ground.
Q. What kind was the ground over there?
A. It was rough ground and dry.
Q. What did Ronald do while you were down on the ground?
A. He covered my mouth with a hand so I could not shout. He pointed a knife at
me and forced me to yield to him.
Q. Did it not bother you that you left the wedding party alone by
yourself?
A. No, sir. Walking alone did not bother me because I knew everyone in
the barrio.
Q. What route did you take going home?
A. I took a short cut across Mario’s farm, in the direction of our house.
Q. Can you describe the path that you took?
A. The path was quite uneven and difficult.
Q. How was it?
A. I was used to it and I managed very well.
PROSECUTOR: That is all.
Transcript of stenographic notes
October 12
(Abridged and edited for study

COURT STAFF: (after swearing in the witness )

State your name and personal circumstances.
WITNESS: I am Dr. Amado Ampil, of legal age, married, and a medical
examiner for the Province of Batangas, and a resident of
Batangas City.
PROSECUTOR: Have you ever examined a woman by the name of Julia
Torres?
A. Yes, I examined Julia Torres after she complained to the Lian police
that she had been raped. It took her two days before reporting the
incident.
Q. Could you describe her physical built.
A. She was of small built, 4 feet 11 inches in height, and of fair
complexion.
Q. That was your finding after conducting a medical examination of her?
A. I found after examining her body that she suffered from laceration of
the cervix posterior portion and laceration of the vaginal canal posterior
portion. The lacerations are about two days old.
Q. Did you find any other injuries on her body?
A. None, sir.
Q. Did you prepare a medical report showing such finding?
R. Yes, sir. This is my report.(Marked as Exhibit “A”)
PROSECUTOR: That will be all.
Transcript of stenographic notes
October 16
(Abridged and edited for study
COURT STAFF: (after swearing in the witness )
State your name and personal circumstances.
WITNESS: I am Ronald Galang, twenty years old, single, and a resident
of Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: With the Court’s permission. Do you know the
complainant in this case, Ms. Julia Torres?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. She testified that you raped her, what can you say about that?
A. I did not rape Julia.
Q. But did you have sexual relation with her on the evening of June 12?
A. Yes, sir. But she freely agreed to make love with me that night of the
wedding party at Celia’s house.
Q. The medical examiner testified that she found lacerations on Julia’s vaginal
canal when he examined her two days later. What can you say about that?
A. That must be true. I discovered that evening that Julia was a virgin because
she bled. It worried me but she said that it was not too painful.
Q. Did you communicate each other after that evening of June 12?
A. Julia called for me the following day, insisting that I marry her because she
was afraid she might have become pregnant
Q. What was your reply to her?
A. Because I had to look after my parents yet, I declined, asking her to wait a while.
Q. And what was her reaction to that?
A. Julia became angry and threatened to complain to her parents that I raped her.
Q. What was your reaction to what she said?
A. I still refused to marry her right away.
Q. So what did she do?
A. She accused me of raping her.
Q. What relation, if any did you have with Julia about the time of the alleged rape?
R. Julia and I have been sweethearts for over two months before June 12.
Q. How dis you come to meet each other at that wedding in Celia’s house?
R. On that evening we met by prior agreement at Celia’s house right in our barrio.
Q. What happened when you met each other at that wedding party?
A. Things stated our well and I had some fun meeting my friends. But, because
of their jokes that I had some other girl, Julia became angry and refused to talk
to me.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I left to brood outside.
Q. How long did you stay outside?
A. Not too long. I returned to the party an hour later a friend called me inside.
Q. what did you do when the wedding party ended?
R. When the party ended, I walked alongside Julia and tried to explain the
jokes played by my friends.
Q. How did she react to your explanation?
A. She did not want to believe me at first. After awhile, I convinced her to sit
with me on a piece of log near the house of Mario.
Q. What happened after you sat on that log?
R. The evening was romantic and we eventually reconciled.
Q. What happened after you reconciled?
S. We kissed and embraced and, forgetting ourselves, we made love on the
grass.
Q. What did you do after you made love to Julia?
T. I walked with her up to about twenty meters of her house.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: That is all.
Transcript of stenographic notes
October 25
(Abridged and edited for study

COURT STAFF: (after swearing in the witness )

State your name and personal circumstances.
WITNESS: I am Mario Perez, forty five years old, married, and a resident
of Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: With the Court’s permission. Do you remember
where you were on the evening of June 12?
A. I remember that I was home that evening of June 12.
Q. Why do you remember that evening?
A. I was told that a rape was committed on my farm that evening and it so
happened that my two-year-old daughter was then running a fever.
Q. Is it possible you went to bed early that evening?
R. I remember that I slept late because I had to watch our sick daughter while
my wife took het turn to rest.
Q. Was the farm visible that night?
S. The night was not so dark because the moon shone brightly in the sky.
Q. What time did you go to bed after watching your sick daughter?
T. I took my turn to sleep after midnight.
Q. During the time you were looking after your daughter, do you remember
hearing the outcry of a woman from somewhere outside your house?
A. No. I heard no outcry from outside my house.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: That is all.
 Obviously, the above testimonies contain much that is not
connected to the rape issue. They are filled with details that
usually accompany raw story telling. When making a
summary of them, whole sentences can go and these would
not affect the essence of the story.
RELEVANT FACTS EXTRACTED
Can you sort out the testimonies above and make a short
summary of the facts that really matter to the case? This is not
difficult, as you have earlier seen. Just remember the lesson
you learned.
First, try to identify the legal dispute involved in the above case. Obviously, the
legal dispute consists in (a) the latter’s denial of the charge. Second, rewrite the
legal dispute in the format of an issue to produce your principal issue then put
down this issue to produce your principal issue then put down this issue in bold
print, and place it right before you as you do your summarizing. Using this issue
guide, you can then peel away from the narrations all the facts that are not
connected to such issue. It will hold you to your aim.

After rewriting your principal issue, it should red:

WHETHER OR NOT RONALD RAPED JULIA
See how these lessons are applied to the testimony of Julia, reproduced below.
The facts relevant to the issue and essential to the outline have been put in bold.
The explanation for doing away with the non-essential facts have been bracketed
and[italicized.]
Transcript of stenographic notes
October 8
(Abridged and edited for study

COURT STAFF: (after swearing in the witness )

State your name and personal circumst ances.
[Note: Obviously, you do not need to put in your outline this stuff about the oath
and the request made to the witness to state her personal circumstances. They do
not yield any fact of the case.]
WITNESS: I am Julia Torres, eighteen years old, single, and a resident of Barrio
Talaan, Lian, Batangas.
[Note: The rape event tells a story. To make sense, every store must say what
happened, how it happened, who are involved, when it happened, where it
happened, and possibly why it happened. These descriptions of Julia Torres, the
victim, are essential to appreciating her humanity and put the legal dispute into
its proper context. Consequently you need them in your outline.]
PROSECUTOR: With the Court’s permission. Do you know Ronald Galang, the
accused in this case?
A. Yes, sir. [ Note: When the witness says,”yes,” to a question, the facts contained in the
question, which she affirms with her “yes” answer are implicitly incorporated into the
answer. If those facts are relevant, they should go into your outline.] He is there
(pointing to the accused).
Q. Why do you him?
R. He raped me. [ Note: Surely relevant.]
Q. Where did this happen?
A. It happened on the rice field near Mario’s house.[ Note this answers the question
“where?’]
Q. How did Ronald rape you?
A. I struggled to get free but he pointed the knife at my side and
threatened to stab me if I called for help or persisted in fighting back. [ Note:
Shows how it was committed.]
Q. So what did you do?
R. Out of fear, I gave in [ Note: is this relevant to the issue? Of course, for it
shows why the rape succeeded.] and he raped me [ Note: This is just a repeat of a
previous statement].
Q. What did you do after Ronald raped you?
R. I kept the matter to myself for a while.
[Note: Is this relevant? Yes. Ordinarily, the victim of grave wrongdoing would
complain about it to someone. Julia’s silence could affect the credibility of her
claim.]
Q. Why?
A. Because I was afraid of the trouble that will happen if my parents
and brothers found out.
[Note: Since this is Julia’s justification for incurring delay in reporting the
crime, it should be relevant like the preceding answer.] They loved me so much
They loved me so. [Note: That her parents and brothers loved her so much
would have no bearing on the issue of whether or not Ronald raped her].
Q. For how long did you keep the matter to yourself?
A. After two days of worrying and feeling bad, I finally told my aunt
about it and she in turn told my parents. [ Note: Her reason for changing her
mind and eventually reporting the matter should also be considered relevant in
judging her credibility.]
Q. What is the reaction of your parents?
A. They were quite furious and wanted to take the matter into their own hands but cooler heads
prevailed. [Note: The reaction is limited to her parents and brothers; it is irrelevant to the rape issue.]
Q. So what did you after that?
B. I went to police to complain. [ Note: Is this relevant? Yes Complaining to the police about the
commission of the crime lends credence to the claim that it took place.]
Q. Is that all that you did?
A. I also submitted myself to medical examination. [Note: Same reason as the above.]
Q. When did Ronald rape you?
A. He raped me on June 12 at 7 p.m. [Note: States the time.]
Q. How did you meet Ronald on June 12?
C. I went to the house of Celia in our barrio to attend a wedding party and I saw him
there.
[Note: this fact is essential to an understanding of the antecedents of the alleged crime.]
Q. Do you have any relationship with Ronald?
A. None. He was only my suitor.
[NOTE: Some say that this is irrelevant since it is possible for Ronald to rape
Julia whatever be their relationship. Others think, however, that this is important
since it shows that Ronald was attracted to Julia.]
Q. What were your feelings during the party?
B. I was in high spirit because I met a lot of friends and had a good
time. [ Note: Even if true, it does not help you know whether or not Ronald
raped Julia.]
Q. Do you recall any unusual thing that happened at that wedding
party?
A. Someone exploded firecrackers nearby and this caused a scare for a
while. [Note: Same as preceding observation.]
Q. You said that you saw your suitor, Ronald, at the party. Did you
have occasion to talk to each other.
A. He wanted to talk to me but I ignored him because I disliked him
for a suitor. In fact, I stayed away from him. [Note: This is relevant because
Julia’s attitude towards Ronald, if true, would render it unlikely that she
would let him escort her home from the wedding party or have sex with him.]
Q. What happened after you ignore him?
A. The married couple danced after supper and people joined in.
[Note: This fact has no bearing at all to the rape.]
Q. What did you do after dancing?
A. At 11 p.m. I took leave to go and started to walk home alone in the
moonlight.
[Note: This is relevant to the issue because it shows the circumstances
immediately preceding the alleged rape.]
Q. Did any thing unusual happen during your walk home?
B. When I was about fifty meters from Mario’s house, Ronald came
behind me and requested that he walk me home.
Q. What was you reaction to him?
[Note: Same observation as the preceding answer.]
A. I really did not like him. [Note: This is redundant, a repetition of a
previous statement.] I declined and doubled my steps. [Note: This is also sets
the stage for the rape case.]
Q. So what happened after you walked faster?
A. Ronald caught my arm and wrestled me to the ground.
[Note: Use of force is an element of the rape.]
Q. What kind was the ground over there?
B. It was rough ground and dry.
[Note: This could be relevant if it somehow sheds light on the issue of whether
or not the rape took place.]
Q. What did Ronald do while you were down on the ground?
C. He covered my mouth with a hand so I could not shout. He pointed a
knife at me and forced me to yield to him.
[Note: This is no doubt relevant since it tends to show that Ronald raped
Julia.]
Q. Did it not bother you that you left the wedding party alone by yourself?
A. No, sir. Walking alone did not bother me because I knew everyone in the
barrio. [Note: This is relevant to counter the claim that, being a woman, it was quite
unlikely for her to be walking home alone.]
Q. What route did you take going home?
B. I took a short cut across Mario’s farm, in the direction of our house.
[ Note: This fact is needed to link the other relevant facts together.]
Q. Can you describe the path that you took?
A. The path was quite uneven and difficult .[Note: This is probably irrelevant since
it neither helps resolve the issue of whether or not the rape took place nor does it help tie
the facts together.]
Q. How was it?
A. I was used to it and I managed very well. [Note: Same observations as above.]
PROSECUTOR: That is all.
 On thing wonderful about analysing the facts to sort out the
relevant from the irrelevant is that such a process makes you see the
component parts of the problem and their relationship. And this
usually reveals to you some of the strengths and weaknesses of the
testimonies and the documents, the keys to developing the arguments
that you would eventually use when you start writing paper. For
example, in analyzing whether Julia’s claim that she walked home
alone is relevant or not, one insight you got is that what she did was
rather unusual for a woman in the barrio to do. This could put a cloud
on her credibility.
follow the same procedure in sorting out the testimonies of the
medical examiner, Ronald Galag, and Mario Perez.
FACTS SET IN SEQUENCE
Equally important to getting rid of irrelevant matters is
putting the events in the order of their occurrence. When the
sequence of the events is in disarray, with subsequent events
told ahead of preceding ones or with frequent flashbacks to the
past as the story unfolds, you are likely to get confused. You
will be looking at items of facts that are out of context or
detached from their surrounding circumstances.
----- Julia Torres is eighteen years old, single, and a resident of Barrio
Talaan, Lian, Batangas.
----- She knows Ronald Galang, the accused.
----- He raped her on the rice field near Mario’s house. [Julia’s testimony
begins with the consummation of the rape.]
----- I struggled to get free but he pointed the knife on her side and
threatened to stab her if she called for help or persisted in fighting back.
[She then backtracks a little to narrate the struggle that preceded the sexual
act.]
----- Out of fear, she gave in. [Here, Julia returns to the consummation of the
rape. In the next line, she moves forward again.]
----- After the rape, she kept the matter to herself because she was afraid of
the trouble that will happen if her parents and brothers found out.
----- After two days of worrying and feeling bad, she finally told her aunt
about it and the latter in turn told her parents.
----- She went to the police to complain.
----- She submitted herself to medical examination.
----- He raped her on June 12 at 7 p.m. [Julia’s story flash back to the moment
of the rape.]
----- She went to the house of Celia in our barrio to attend a wedding
party and she saw him there. [ It is only here that Julia’s tells how her story
begins.]
---- Ronald was only her suitor.
---- He wanted to talk to her but she ignored him because she disliked
him for a suitor. In fact, she stayed away from him.
---- At 11 p.m. she took leave to go and started to walk home alone in the
moonlight.
---- When she was about fifty meters from Mario’s house, Ronald came
behind her and requested that he walk her home.
---- She declined and doubled her steps.
---- Ronald caught her arm and wrestled her on rough and dry ground.
---- He covered her mouth with a hand so she could not shout. He
pointed a knife at her and force her to yield to him.
---- Walking alone did not bother her because she knew everyone in the
barrio.
---- She took a short cut across Mario’s farm, in the direction of her
house.[Julia end her story at its middle part. Just before Ronald interferes with
her journey home and rapes her.]
Julia Torres, eighteen years of age, single, said that she
went to the house of Celia at barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas,
on June 12 at 7 p.m. to attend a wedding party. She saw
her suitor, Ronald Galang, but ignored him since she
disliked him.
At 11 p.m, Julia took leave to go home alone. This did not
bother her because she knew everyone in the barrio. She
took a short cut across Mario Perez’s farm. About fifty
meters from the latter’s house, Ronald came behind her
and asked that he walk her home. She declined but
Ronald caught her arm and wrestled her on the rough
ground, covering her mouth so she could not shout.
 Julia struggled to get free but Ronald pointed a
knife at her side and threatened to stab her. Out
of fear, she gave in and he ravished her.
after the rape, Julia kept the matter to herself
for fear of trouble if her parents and brothers
found out. But, she finally told her aunt. They
went to the public and she submitted to medical
examination.
What benefits do you derive from arranging the
facts in proper order sequence? The benefits are
as follows:
1. The facts are easier to understand when put in the order
of time.
2. When the facts are arranged in the proper order, you
would clearly see how each fact relates to or connects
with others.
3. When the factual versions of either side are put in order and
matched, you would also be able to see clearly the areas where
the respective versions agree and disagree. This is turn will
furnish you with a balanced appreciation of each opposing
claim.
4. Facts, properly arranged, prepare you for the work of writing
up the facts of the case in your pleading or memorandum.
The Case of a Child and Neighbor’s Dog
Peter Banag, the father of a child who was attacked by a
neighbor’s dog, has come to consult you abut the possibility
of his bringing a lawsuit against Arthur Sison, a neighbor.
Peter brought along Fred Puzon to the interview. Fred
witnessed what happened. The following is your interview
with him:
Interview with Mr. Fred Puzon
Accompanied by client
Mr. Peter Banag. Sept. 21
Q. Fred, how old are you?
A. I am twenty-one, Attorney.
Q. What do you do for a living?
B. I work with the government.
Q. Where do you live?
A. I live at 24 Annapolis St., Cubao, Quezon City?
Q. Did you see the dog attack Mr. Banag’s daughter.
C. Yes, sir the dog belonged to Arthur Sison.
Q. What did you do when you saw the dog attack Mary?
A. I immediately ran to help her but, unfortunately, I
ripped on the gutter and fell on my hands and knees.
Q. So what happened?
R. I recovered quickly, moved on, and kicked the dog
away. I then stood by to protect Mary from further
attacks.
Q. Did it attack you?
A. No because Arthur came out of this house and sent
this dog into his yard.
Q. How about Mary, what happened to her?
R. Arthur picked her up, called a tricycle, and brought her
to nearby clinic for treatment.
Q. And you what did you do?
S. My friend then arrived and we left for the mall.
Q. Did you know how old Mary was at that time?
T. I found out the she was about six years old.
Q. How did you get to know Arthur?
A. We are neighbors. He lives at 12 Annapolis Street, the
same street where I lived.
Q. Do you know why Mary was near Arthur’s house?
R. She went there to buy ice-candies. Arthur had been
selling ice-candies at his house for sometime.
Q. How did you know that?
S. I myself used to buy ice-candies from him especially
during summer.
Q. When did the incident involving Mary happened?
T. It happened on September 12 at about 3 p.m.
Q. What where you doing at that time?
A. I was waiting on Annapolis Street for my friend Henry Uy
to come and pick me up so we could go to mall.
Q. Do you remember what day of the week it was?
R. It was Saturday afternoon.
Q. What did you see Mary doing from where you stood?
S. I saw Mary approach Arthur’s gate and knock on it. But
no one answered.
Q. So what did she do?
A. Still she keep on knocking softly at the gate.
Q. What happened next?
A. A young girl of her age passed by and Mary waived her
hand.
Q. So what happened next?
A. Arthur’s dog came out of the yard. As Mary tested the gate
by pushing it, the gate yielded and the dog jumped out.
Q. What did Mary do?
R. She held the gate open and called in saying that she
wanted to buy ice-candy. “Pagbilan nga po ng ice-candy,’’
she said.
Q. So what happened?
R. That was the time I saw the dog go after her. It attacked
her from behind as she turned and ran to leave.
Q. What was your reaction to what you saw?
A. I was shocked for a moment.
 You asked peter why he came to consult with you and he said that he
asked Arthur to pay her daughter P20,000.00 in damages for what she
suffered but all he got all he got was a letter from him. He gave you the
following letter.

Mr. Peter Banag

16 Annapolis St.,
Cubao, Quezon City
I regret that I could not grant your demand to pay you P20,000.00 for
the injuries that your daughter suffered on September 12 when she came
to my house at 12 Annaplis Street, Cubao, Quezon City. I was not at
fault.
 I was napping in my house on the afternoon your daughter came to our gate. I
was awakened when I heard some commotion outside. I thought for a while that
people were quarreling. But I heard shouts that my dog had attacked a child. I
immediately got up and ran out. As I did, I saw Fred Ruzon, our neighbor, trying to
stop my dog, Prancer, from attacking your daughter, Mary, who lay on the ground
just outside the gate. Other neighbors had started to come out and see what was
happening.
To augment the income of my family, I engaged in the business of selling ice-
candies at my house beginning in March of last year. My sale had been brisk
especially during the summer days. I always sold my ice-candies at the gate when
people came to buy. That gate had an automatic closer. But at times, I left it
unlocked from the inside because my children often went it out. I had a dog in my
house, Prancer, but my gate carried a written warning about the presence of that
dog. Until that afternoon of September 12, Prancer had not attacked any one.
 I immediately stepped out into the street as soon as I can and sent Prancer
inside. I was really surprised that you had allowed your daughter to leave the
house without an escort. I myself took care that my young children did not go
out alone.
At any rate, I called a tricycle and brought Mary to a medical clinic nearby
for treatment of her wounds and for an injection. Later, her mother followed us
to the clinic and she comforted her daughter. I paid the medical bill.
I am sorry but I do not believe that I should be liable to your daughter for
damages.

Very truly yours,

Arthur Sison