LEGAL WRITING February 29, 2020

Writing Exercise No. 1

(i) Summary of the Relevant Facts:

Characters:
a. Julia is eighteen years old, single, and a resident of Barrio Talaan, Lian Batangas
b. Dr. Amado Ampil, of legal age, married, and a medical
examiner for the Province of Batangas and a resident of
Batangas City
c. Ronald Galang, twenty years old, single, and a resident of
Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas
d. Mario, forty-five years old, married, farmer, and a resident of
Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas, had a two-year old daughter who
was sick

Narration:
1. Julia knows Ronald Galang, the accused
2. Ronald raped Julia on the ricefield near Mario Perez’s house
3. Julia struggled to get free but Ronald pointed a knife at her side and threatened to
stab her if she called for help or persisted in fighting back
4. Out of fear, Julia kept the matter to herself because she was afraid of the trouble
that will happen if her parents and brothers fount out
5. After two days of worrying and feeling bad, Julia finally told her aunt about it and
the latter in turn to her parents
6. Julia went to the police to complain
7. Two days after the rape incident of Julia, Dr. Amado Ampil
examined Julia.
8. Ronald raped Julia on June 12, 7:00PM
9. Julia went to the house of Celia in the barrio to attend a wedding party and she
saw Ronald, her suitor, there
10. Ronald wanted to talk to her but Julia ignored him because she disliked him for a
suitor. In fact, she stayed away from him.
11. At 11:00PM, Julia left the party and started to walk home alone in the moonlight
12. When Julia was about fifty meters from Mario’s house, Ronald came behind her
and requested that he walk her home
13. Julia declined and doubled her steps
14. Ronald caught Julia’s arm and wrestled her on rough and dry ground
15. Ronald covered Julia’s mouth with a hand so she could not shout. He pointed a
knife at her and forced her to yield to him
16. Walking alone did not bother Julia because she know everyone in the barrio
17. Julia took a short cut across Mario’s far, in the direction of her house.

(ii) Arrangement of Facts in order:

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 7pm to attend a wedding party. She saw
her suitor, Ronald Galang, but ignored him since she disliked him.

At 11pm, Julia left the party and went 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 police and she
submitted to medical examination.

(iii) Issue: Whether or not, Ronald raped Julia?

Writing Exercise No. 2

(i) Summary of Relevant Facts, in order:

On September 12th at 3pm of a Saturday afternoon, Mary, a six-
year-old child, went to the house of Arthur Sison (which is located at 12
Annapolis street) to buy ice-candies. Mary knocked on Arthur’s gate a
few times. Arthur’s dog, Pancer, came out to the yard. As Mary was
testing the gate by pushing it, the gate yielded and the dog jumped
out. She held the gate open and called in saying that she wanted to
buy ice-candy. That was the time when the dog go after the child and it
attacked her from behind as she was turning and trying to leave.
Arthur immediately stepped out and sent the dog inside. He
immediately called a tricycle and brought Mary to a medical clinic
nearby for treatment of her wounds and for injection.

After the incident, Peter Banag, the father of Mary, asked Arthur to
pay her daughter P20,000 in damages for what she suffered. However,
Arthur did not agree and instead sent him a letter containing the
information that Arthur could not grant the demand of Peter because
he was not at fault and he should not be held liable for the injuries of
her daughter. According to him (1) his gate carried a written warning
about a presence of a dog, (2) he paid the medical bill for the
treatment of Mary, and (3) Peter allowed her daughter, a six-year-old
child, to go out of the house alone and without an escort.

(ii) Legal Dispute: Whether or not Arthur is liable for the damages
from the injury of Mary caused by his dog.

(iii) Short Summary of Facts from the Point of View of:

 Peter Banag (client-plaintiff) - On September 12th at 3pm,
one Saturday afternoon, Mary, a six-year-old child of Peter
Banag, went to the house of Arthur Sison, located at 12
Annapolis street, to buy ice-candies. Mary knocked on Arthur’s
gate a few times and Arthur’s dog, Pancer, came out to the yard.
As Mary was testing the gate by pushing it, the gate yielded and
the dog jumped out. She held the gate open and called in saying
that she wanted to buy ice-candy. That was the time when the
dog went after her and it attacked her from behind as she was
turning and tying to leave. Fred Puzon, neighbor of Arthur, was
waiting for a friend near the house of Arthur when the incident
happened. He saw Arthur came out of his house and sent the
dog into his yard. Arthur picked Mary up, called a tricycle, and
brought her to a nearby clinic for treatment.
 Arthur (respondent) – He was napping on his house when
Mary came to his gate. He was awakened when there was some
commotion outside. When he heard that his dog attacked a child,
he immediately got up and ran out. He saw Fred Puzon, a
neighbor, fending off the dog to stop it from attacking Mary. He
stepped out and sent Pancer, the dog, inside and immediately
called a tricycle and brought Mary to a medical clinic nearby for
treatment of her wounds and for injection. He paid for the
medical bill.

Writing Exercise No. 3

a. Laws or rules governing the case:

1. R.A 9482 - "Anti-Rabies Act of 2007"

Under Republic Act No. 9482, the pet owner has the following
responsibilities when his pet dog bites another:
1. Within twenty-four (24) hours, report immediately any Dog
biting incident to the Concerned Officials (barangay officials,
health workers, police officers or government veterinarians)
for investigation or for any appropriate action and place such
Dog under observation by a government or private
veterinarian.
2. Assist the Dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the
medical expenses incurred and other incidental expenses
relative to the victim’s injuries.

R.A. 9482, Section 11 (3) and (4).

(3) Pet Owners who refuse to have their Dog put under
observation after said Dog has Bitten an individual shall be
meted a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).

(4) Pet Owners who refuse to have their Dog put under
observation and do not shoulder the medical expenses of the
person Bitten by their Dog shall be meted a fine of Twenty-five
thousand pesos (P25,000.00).

2. ARTICLE 2183 OF CIVIL CODE:

The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the
same is responsible for the damage which it may cause,
although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease
only in case the damage should come from force majeure or
from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.
b. Parallel cases that the Supreme Court previously decided:

A possessor of an animal is liable for the injuries and damages

caused by his pet.  Even if one is not the owner but the actual
possessor of the dog, he can still be held liable.  As enunciated by
the Supreme Court in Vestil vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R.
No. 74431, 06 November 1989), the liability here is not based on
negligence or lack of vigilance of the possessor of the animal. 
Rather, it is based on natural equity and on the principle of
social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility,
pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such
animal may cause.

Yeng vs Roma, G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960, where a dog
bite caused the death of the petitioner while on his duty.
Respondent was held liable.