ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
LEGAL RESEARCH
Process of finding the laws, rules and
regulations that govern activities in
human society.
It involves locating both the laws and
rules which are enforced by the State
and the Commentaries which explain
or analyze these rules
The investigation for information
necessary to support legal decision
making.
Includes each step of a process that
begins with analyzing facts of a
probem and concludes with applying
and communicating the results of the
investigation.
WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR LEGAL
RESEARCH?
A lawyer is required to provide
competent representation to client.
A lawyer must be able to research
the law to provide competent
representation
BASIC STEPS IN CONDUCTING
RESEARCH
A. SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO
LEGAL RESEARCH [IA.F.R.U]
1. Identify and Analyze the
significant facts
2. Formulate the legal issues to be
researched
3. Research the issues presented
4. Upadate
Identify and Analyze
Significant Facts
Factual analysis is the 1st sep
in formulating legal issue to be
researched.
o TARP Rule is useful technique to
analyze facts according to the
following factors.
T Thing/ Subj Matter
A- Cause of Action/ Defense
R- Relief Sought
P- Parties
>putting the elements in an example:
Thing or subject matter a party claims a
violation of the terms of a contract
Cause of action breach of contract
Relief sought civil action for damages/action
for specific performance
Persons or parties involved lessor and lessee
Formulate the legal issues to
be researched
>goal: classify and categorize problems into
general and increasingly specific, subject
areas to begin to hypothesize legal issues
>initial activity which presupposes
knowledge of substantive law
>drafted statements of the issue should be
arranged logically to form an outline
Research the issues presented
>method:
a. organize and plan best practice
is to write down all sources to be
researched under each issue to be
researched
b. identify, read and update all
relevant constitutional provisions,
statutes and administrative
regulations
c. identify, read and update all
relevant case law i.e. laws applied
in case files
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
d. refine the search
Update
>rationale: law changes constantly
Case briefing a students digest or
condensation of a reported case
>components of a case brief:
1. Facts describe events between
the parties leading to the litigation
and tel how the case came before
the court that is now deciding it
2. Issue/s the question the court
must decide to resolve the dispute
between the parties in the case
before it
3. Ruling the courts decision on
the issue that is actually before it
PLAGIARISM
In Matter of Charges of Plagiarism, etc.
Against Associate Justice Mariano Del
Castillo
Designated member plagiarized works of
certain authors and twisted their meanings
to support decision
OCTOBER12,2010
FACTS:
In the landmark decision of Vinuya vs.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230,
promulgated last April 28, 2010, the
Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition
filed by a group of Filipino comfort
women during the Japanese military
occupation of the Philippines.
The Court, speaking through Justice
Mariano C. del Castillo, held that the
petition seeking to compel the Executive
Department to espouse the petitioners
claims for official apology and other
forms of reparations against Japan
before the International Court of Justice
and other international tribunals has
NO MERIT because:
1. the prerogative to determine
whether to espouse petitioners
claims against Japan belongs
exclusively to the Executive
Department; and
2. the Philippines is not under any
international obligation to espouse
the petitioners claims.
Discontented with the foregoing
decision, the petitioners in Vinuya filed a
motion for reconsideration.
Subsequently, they also filed a
supplemental motion for
reconsideration, this time accusing the
Justice del Castillo of plagiarizing
(copying without attribution) and twisting
passages from three foreign legal
articles to support the Courts position in
the Vinuya decision:
(1) A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by
Professors Evan J. Criddle (Associate Professor
of Syracuse University College of Law) and
Evan Fox-Descent (Assistant Professor of
McGill University Faculty of Law) published in
the Yale Journal of International Law in 2009;
(2) Breaking the Silence: Rape as an
International Crime by Mark Ellis (Executive
Director of the International Bar Association),
published in the Case Western Reserve Journal
of International Law in 2006; and
(3) Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in
International Law by Professor Christian J. Tams
(Chair of International Law of University of
Glasgow School of Law), published in
Cambridge University Press (2005).
The Court then referred the charges
against Justice Del Castillo to its
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
Committee on Ethics and Ethical
Standards, chaired by Chief Justice
Renato Corona, for investigation and
recommendation.
After the proceedings before it, the
Committee submitted its findings
and recommendations to the Court
en banc, which then treated and
decided the controversy as an
administrative matter.
II. THE ISSUES
1. Did Justice Del Castillo, in writing the
opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case,
plagiarize the published works of authors
Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis?
2. Did Justice Del Castillo twist the works
of these authors to make it appear that such
works supported the Courts position in the
Vinuya decision?
III. THE RULING
1. NO, Justice Del Castillo, in writing the
opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case,
did NOT plagiarize the published works
of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and
Ellis.
At its most basic, plagiarism means the theft
of another persons language, thoughts, or
ideas. To plagiarize, as it is commonly
understood according to Webster, is to take
(ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and
pass them off as ones own. The passing
off of the work of another as ones own is
thus an indispensable element of
plagiarism.
As regards that one passage from
Professor Tams, the Court believes that
whether or not the footnote is sufficiently
detailed, so as to satisfy the footnoting
standards of counsel for petitioners is not an
ethical matter but one concerning clarity of
writing. The statement See Tams,
Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in
International Law (2005) in the Vinuya
decision is an attribution no matter if Tams
thought that it gave him somewhat less
credit than he deserved. Such attribution
altogether negates the idea that Justice Del
Castillo passed off the challenged passages
as his own.
That it would have been better had Justice
Del Castillo used the introductory phrase
cited in rather than the phrase See would
make a case of mere inadvertent slip in
attribution rather than a case of manifest
intellectual theft and outright plagiarism. If
the Justices citations were imprecise, it
would just be a case of bad footnoting
rather than one of theft or deceit. If it were
otherwise, many would be target of abuse
for every editorial error, for every mistake in
citing pagination, and for every technical
detail of form.
As regards the passages from Ellis, the
Court notes that the lengthy passages in
Footnote 65 of Vinuya came almost
verbatim from Ellis article but did not
contain an acknowledgment or introduction
that they are from that article. Moreover, as
regards the passages from the work of
Professors Criddle and Descent, it was
also observed that the Vinuya decision lifted
the portions, including their footnotes, from
Criddle-Descents article, A Fiduciary
Theory of Jus Cogens as footnotes in the
Vinuya decision without any attributions
made to the two authors. Unless amply
explained, these unattributed lifting from the
works of Ellis and Criddle-Descent could be
construed as plagiarism.
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
The explanation from one of Justice Del
Castillos researchers, a court-employed
attorney explained how she accidentally
deleted the attributions, originally
planted in the beginning drafts of her
report to him, which report eventually
became the working draft of the decision.
She said that, for most parts, she did her
research electronically. For international
materials, she sourced these mainly from
Westlaw, an online research service for
legal and law-related materials to which the
Court subscribes. The researcher showed
the Committee the early drafts of her report
in the Vinuya case and these included the
passages lifted from the separate articles of
Criddle-Descent and of Ellis with proper
attributions to these authors. But, as it
happened, in the course of editing and
cleaning up her draft, the researcher
accidentally deleted the attributions.
It was notable that neither Justice Del
Castillo nor his researcher had a motive
or reason for omitting attribution for the
lifted passages to Criddle-Descent or to
Ellis. The latter authors are highly
respected professors of international law.
The law journals that published their works
have exceptional reputations. It did not
make sense to intentionally omit attribution
to these authors when the decision cites an
abundance of other sources. Citing these
authors as the sources of the lifted
passages would enhance rather than
diminish their informative value. Both
Justice Del Castillo and his researcher gain
nothing from the omission. Thus, the failure
to mention the works of Criddle-Decent and
Ellis was unquestionably due to
inadvertence or pure oversight.
2. NO, Justice Del Castillo did NOT
twist the works of authors Tams, Criddle-
Descent, and Ellis to make it appear that
such works supported the Courts
position in the Vinuya decision.
The decision [in Vinuya] did NOT twist the
passages from Tams, Criddle-Descent, and
Ellis. To twist means to distort or pervert
the meaning of. Here, nothing in the Vinuya
decision said or implied that, based on the
lifted passages, authors Tams, Criddle-
Descent, and Ellis supported the Courts
conclusion that the Philippines is not under
any obligation in international law to
espouse Vinuya et al.s claims.
FEBRUARY 8,2011
FACTS:
The Malaya Lolas received an adverse
decision in the case Vinuya vs Romulo
decided by the Supreme Court on April
28, 2010. The Malaya Lolas sought the
annulment of said decision due to the
alleged irregularity in the writing of the
text of the decision. Allegedly, the
ponente of said case, Justice Mariano
del Castillo copied verbatim portions of
the decision laid down in said case
from three works by three foreign
authors without acknowledging said
authors hence an overt act of
plagiarism which is highly
reprehensible.
Plagiarism as defined by Blacks Law
Dictionary is the deliberate and
knowing presentation of another
persons original ideas or creative
expressions as ones own.
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
ISSUE:
Whether or not plagiarism is applicable to
decisions promulgated by the Supreme
Court.
HELD:
No. It has been a long standing practice
in this jurisdiction not to cite or
acknowledge the originators of passages
and views found in the Supreme Courts
decisions. Never in the judiciarys more
than 100 years of history has the lack of
attribution been regarded and demeaned as
plagiarism.
As put by one author (this time
acknowledged by the Court), Joyce C.
George from her Judicial Opinion Writing
Handbook:
A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether
trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge
of plagiarism even if ideas, words or
phrases from a law review article, novel
thoughts published in a legal periodical or
language from a partys brief are used
without giving attribution. Thus judges are
free to use whatever sources they deem
appropriate to resolve the matter before
them, without fear of reprisal. This
exemption applies to judicial writings
intended to decide cases for two
reasons: the judge is not writing a
literary work and, more importantly, the
purpose of the writing is to resolve a
dispute. As a result, judges adjudicating
cases are not subject to a claim of legal
plagiarism.
Further, as found by the Supreme Court, the
omission of the acknowledgment by Justice
del Castillo of the three foreign authors
arose from a clerical error. It was shown
before the Supreme Court that the
researcher who finalized the draft written by
Justice del Castillo accidentally deleted the
citations/acknowledgements; that in all,
there is still an intent to acknowledge and
not take such passages as that of Justice
del Castillos own.
OTHER UNETHICAL CONDUCTS
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD
THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS
OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
RULE 1.01
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES
CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH
TO THE COURT.
RULE 10.01
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice.
RULE 10.02
A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the contents of a paper,
the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a
decision or authority, or knowingly cite
as law a provision already rendered
inoperative by repeal or amendment, or
assert as a fact that which has not been
proved.
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
HIPOS, SR. VS. BAY
Violation of Rule 10.02 of CPR;
statement of petitioners counsel if
utterly misleading
FACTS:
Two Informations for the crime of rape
and one Information for the crime of
acts of lasciviousness were filed
against petitioners Darryl Hipos,
Jaycee Corsio, Arthur Villaruel and
two others before RTC presided by
Judge Bay.
Private complainants AAA and BBB
filed a Motion for Reinvestigation
asking Judge Bay to order the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City to study if
the proper Informations had been filed
against petitioners and their co-
accused.
Judge Bay granted the Motion and
ordered a reinvestigation of the cases.
Hipos and other filed their Joint
Memorandum to Dismiss the Case[s]
before the City Prosecutor. City
Prosecutor affirmed the Informations
filed against them.
However, 2nd Asst. City Prosecutor
reversed the Resolution holding that
there was lack of probable cause.
City Prosecutor filed a Motion to
Withdraw Informations before Judge
Bay. Judge Bay denied the motion
hence the petition.
ISSUE:
CAN THE HON. SUPREME COURT
COMPEL RESPONDENT JUDGE BAY
TO DISMISS THE CASE THROUGH A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY VIRTUE OF
THE RESOLUTION OF THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON
CITY FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE
AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND
SUBSEQUENTLY FILING A MOTION TO
WITHDRAW INFORMATION?
HELD:
As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of
mandamus lies only to compel an officer
to perform a ministerial duty, not a
discretionary one; mandamus will not
issue to control the exercise of discretion
by a public officer where the law imposes
upon him the duty to exercise his
judgment in reference to any manner in
which he is required to act, because it is
his judgment that is to be exercised and
not that of the court.
However, mandamus is never available to
direct the exercise of judgment or
discretion in a particular way or the
retraction or reversal of an action already
taken in the exercise of either.
If petitioners believed that Judge Bay
committed grave abuse of discretion in the
issuance of such Order denying the Motion to
Withdraw Informations, the proper remedy of
petitioners should have been to file a Petition
for Certiorari against the assailed Order of
Judge Bay.
Petitioners cite the following excerpt from our
ruling in Sanchez v. Demetriou[7]:
The appreciation of the evidence involves the
use of discretion on the part of the prosecutor,
and we do not find in the case at bar a clear
showing by the petitioner of a grave abuse of
such discretion.
The decision of the prosecutor may be
reversed or modified by the Secretary of
Justice or in special cases by the President of
the Philippines. But even this Court cannot
order the prosecution of a person against
whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient
evidence to support at least a prima facie
case. The courts try and absolve or convict the
accused but as a rule have no part in the initial
decision to prosecute him.
The possible exception is where there is an
unmistakable showing of grave abuse of
discretion that will justify a judicial
intrusion into the precincts of the
executive. But in such a case the proper
remedy to call for such exception is a
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
petition for mandamus, not certiorari or
prohibition.[8] (Emphases supplied.)
Petitioners have taken the above passage
way out of its context
Petitioners also claim that since Judge Bay
granted a Motion for Reinvestigation, he
should have deferred to the Resolution of
Asst. City Prosecutor De Vera withdrawing
the case.[11] Petitioners cite the following
portion of our Decision in People v.
Montesa, Jr.:
In the instant case, the respondent Judge
granted the motion for reinvestigation and
directed the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Bulacan to conduct the
reinvestigation. The former was, therefore,
deemed to have deferred to the authority of
the prosecution arm of the Government to
consider the so-called new relevant and
material evidence and determine whether
the information it had filed should stand.
Like what was done to our ruling in
Sanchez, petitioners took specific
statements from our Decision, carefully
cutting off the portions which would expose
the real import of our pronouncements.
In a seemingly desperate attempt on the
part of petitioners counsel, he tries to
convince us that a judge is allowed to deny
a Motion to Withdraw Informations from the
prosecution only when there is grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the prosecutors
moving for such withdrawal; and that, where
there is no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the prosecutors, the denial of the
Motion to Withdraw Informations is void.
Petitioners counsel states in the
Memorandum:
6.10. Furthermore, the ORDER dated October
2, 2006 of the Respondent Judge BAY
consisting of 9 pages which was attached to the
URGENT PETITION did not point out any iota of
grave abuse of discretion committed by Asst.
City Prosecutor De Vera in issuing his
Resolution in favor of the sons of the Petitioners.
Hence, the ORDER issued by RJBAY is NULL
and VOID in view of the recent ruling of the Hon.
Supreme Court in Ledesma vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 113216, September 5, 1997,
86 SCAD 695, 278 SCRA 657 which states that:
In the absence of a finding of grave abuse of
discretion, the courts bare denial of a motion to
withdraw information pursuant to the Secretarys
resolution is void. (Underscoring ours).
6.11. It is therefore respectfully submitted that
the Hon. Supreme Court disregard the argument
of the OSG because of its falsity.
This statement of petitioners counsel is
utterly misleading. There is no such
statement in our Decision in Ledesma
Petitioners claim that since even the
respondent judge himself found no probable
cause against them, the Motion to Withdraw
Informations by the Office of the City
Prosecutor should be granted.
Even a cursory reading of the assailed
Order, however, clearly shows that the
insertion of the word no in the above
dispositive portion was a mere clerical error.
The assailed Order states in full:
After a careful study of the sworn statements of
the complainants and the resolution dated
March 3, 2006 of 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor
Lamberto C. de Vera, the Court finds that there
was probable cause against the herein accused.
The actuations of the complainants after the
alleged rapes and acts of lasciviousness cannot
be the basis of dismissal or withdrawal of the
herein cases. Failure to shout or offer tenatious
resistance did not make voluntary the
complainants submission to the criminal acts of
the accused (People v. Velasquez, 377 SCRA
214, 2002). The complainants affidavits indicate
that the accused helped one another in
committing the acts complained of. Considering
that the attackers were not strangers but their
trusted classmates who enticed them to go to
the house where they were molested, the
complainants cannot be expected to react
forcefully or violently in protecting themselves
from the unexpected turn of events. Considering
also that both complainants were fifteen (15)
years of age and considered children under our
laws, the ruling of the Supreme Court in People
 ALEEZAH GERTRUDE REGADO
LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
v. Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11,
2004 becomes very relevant. The Supreme
Court ruled as follows:

Rape victims, especially child victims, should not

be expected to act the way mature individuals
would when placed in such a situation. It is not
proper to judge the actions of children who have
undergone traumatic experience by the norms of
behavior expected from adults under similar
circumstances. The range of emotions shown by
rape victim is yet to be captured even by
calculus. It is, thus, unrealistic to expect uniform
reactions from rape victims (People v. Malones,
G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004).

The Court finds no need to discuss in detail the

alleged actuations of the complainants after the
alleged rapes and acts of lasciviousness. The
alleged actuations are evidentiary in nature and
should be evaluated after full blown trial on the
merits. This is necessary to avoid a suspicion of
prejudgment against the accused.

As can be seen, the body of the assailed

Order not only plainly stated that the court
found probable cause against the
petitioners, but likewise provided an
adequate discussion of the reasons for such
finding. Indeed, the general rule is that
where there is a conflict between the
dispositive portion or the fallo and the body
of the decision, the fallo controls. However,
where the inevitable conclusion from the
body of the decision is so clear as to show
that there was a mistake in the dispositive
portion, the body of the decision will prevail.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for

Mandamus is DISMISSED. Let the records
of this case be remanded to the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City for the
resumption of the proceedings therein. The
Regional Trial Court is directed to act on the
case with dispatch.

Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr. is ORDERED

to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be
disciplined as a member of the Bar for his
disquieting conduct as herein discussed.