Reinald Raven L.

Guerrero Legal Research

2. Parts of a Pleading
Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the following are the parts of a pleading:

a. Caption. The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title of the action,
and the docket number if assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in the
original complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name
of the first party on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are
other parties. Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
b. The body. The body of the pleading sets fourth its designation, the allegations
of the party's claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading.
Paragraphs. The allegations in the body of a pleading shall be divided
into paragraphs so numbered to be readily identified, each of which shall contain
a statement of a single set of circumstances so far as that can be done with
convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by its number in all succeeding
pleadings.
Headings. When two or more causes of action are joined the statement
of the first shall be prefaced by the words "first cause of action,'' of the second by
"second cause of action", and so on for the others.
Relief. The pleading shall specify the relief sought, but it may add a
general prayer for such further or other relief as may be deemed just or equitable.
Date. Every pleading shall be dated.
c. Signature and address. Every pleading must be signed by the party or
counsel representing him, stating in either case his address which should not be a post
office box.
The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading;
that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support
it; and that it is not interposed for delay.
An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court may, in its discretion,
allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
inadvertence and not intended for delay.
d. Verification. A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the
pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief.
e. Certification against forum shopping. The plaintiff or principal party shall
certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief,
or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he
has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues
in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such
other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim,
a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after
hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel
clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for
summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause
for administrative sanctions.
Reinald Raven L. Guerrero Legal Research

3. Pursuant to by A. M. No. 11-9-4-SC, the following are the technical requirements or form of a court-
document:
Format and Style.
All pleadings, motions, and similar papers intended for the court and quasi-judicial body's
consideration and action (court-bound papers) shall be written in single space with a one- and-a-
half space between paragraphs, using an easily readable font style of the party's choice, of 14-size
font, and on a 13-inch by 8.5-inch white bond paper; and

Margins and Prints.

The parties shall maintain the following margins on all court-bound papers: a left hand margin of
1.5 inches from the edge; an upper margin of 1.2 inches from the edge; a right hand margin of 1.0
inch from the edge; and a lower margin of 1.0 inch from the edge. Every page must be
consecutively numbered.
Reinald Raven L. Guerrero Legal Research

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Reinald Raven L. Guerrero, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose
and state that:

1. I am a plaintiff in the above-stated case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal
knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my possession;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

Reinald Raven L. Guerrero

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of __________ 200_ at _________________

affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No.____________________ issued on
________________ 200_ at ______________ City.

Negros Merchants vs China Banking Corp.

It is settled that the requirement to file a certificate of non-forum shopping is
mandatory and that the failure to comply with this requirement cannot be
excused. The certification is a peculiar and personal responsibility of the party, an
assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases
involving basically the same parties, issues and causes of action.
Reinald Raven L Guerrero Legal Research

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
10th Judicial Branch
BRANCH 5
Butuan City

ATTY. JAI,
Petitioner,

-versus-
CIVIL CASE NO. C-QTZ-24-25285-D
For: Recovery of Possesion
ATTY. RAUL,
Respondent
x------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Respondent, ATTY. RAUL, through the undersigned counsel,
appearing especially and solely for this purpose, and to this Honorable Court, most
respectfully moves for the dismissal of the Complaint on grounds that the complaint
lacks the proper verification and certification against forum shopping.

DISCUSSION

COMPLAINT LACKS PROPER

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

Rule 7, Section 5, second paragraph of the Rules of Court, explicitly provides that:

The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or
filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if
there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after
hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the
corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel
clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for
summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause
for administrative sanctions.

Expressly provided in the abovementioned law is the rule that the failure to comply with
the requirement of the attachment of a proper verification and certification against forum
shopping shall be a cause for dismissal of the case without prejudice. As me be surmised
from the complaint submitted by the adverse party to your honorable Court, herein
attached, it is quite clear that there is a lack of the requirement of a proper verification
and certification against forum shopping in the formers complaint as provided for by the
said rule, thereby meriting a cause for the dismissal of the same.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint be dismissed for lack of a

proper verification and certification against forum shopping.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Butuan City, Philippines, 05 September, 2017.

ATTY. RAUL
Petitioner

NOTICE

The Clerk of Court

RTC-Branch 5
Butuan City

G R E E T I N G S:

Please submit the foregoing ex parte motion for the consideration and approval of the
Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

ATTY. RAUL

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Butuan City

ATTY. JAI
Butuan City

Explanation
This Motion to Dismiss is being filed, with copy thereof furnished the other party, to the
Office of the Solicitor General by registered mail due to the distance of the undersigned
from the said other party, making personal filing and service thereof not practicable.

ATTY. RAUL
Reinald Raven L Guerrero Legal Research
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
10th Judicial Branch
BRANCH 5
Butuan City

ATTY. JAI,
Petitioner,

-versus-
CIVIL CASE NO. C-QTZ-24-25285-D
For: Recovery of Possesion
ATTY. RAUL,
Respondent
x------------------------------------------x

COMMENTS AND OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION

COMES NOW the Petitioner, ATTY. JAI, through the undersigned counsel, appearing
especially and solely for this purpose, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully
submits his comments and vigorous opposition on grounds of substantial compliance of
the proper verification and certification against forum shopping.

DISCUSSION

SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPER

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

In the case of Lourdez C. Fernandez vs Norma Villegas, the Court laid down the following
guidelines with respect to noncompliance with the requirements on or submission of a
defective verification and certification against forum shopping:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on

or submission of defective verification, and noncompliance with the requirement
on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.
2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are
such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the
ends of justice may be served thereby.
3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample
knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs
the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good
faith or are true and correct.
4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect
therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission
or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of
"substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling
reasons."
5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or
petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties
to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all
the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause
 of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against
forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-
pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the
party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney
designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

As maybe seen by the execution of the verification and certification against forum
shopping of the herein petitioner, ATTY. JAI, there is indeed a substantial compliance of
the said verification and certification against forum shopping, since the petition was
undeniably made in good faith and are true and correct

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Motion to Dismiss submitted by ATTY.

RAUL be dismissed for lack of a proper verification and certification against forum
shopping.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Butuan City, Philippines, 05 September, 2017.

ATTY. JAI
Petitioner

NOTICE

The Clerk of Court

RTC-Branch 5
Butuan City

G R E E T I N G S:

Please submit the foregoing ex parte motion for the consideration and approval of the
Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

ATTY. JAI
Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Butuan City

ATTY. RAUL
Butuan City

Explanation
This Motion to Dismiss is being filed, with copy thereof furnished the other party, to the
Office of the Solicitor General by registered mail due to the distance of the undersigned
from the said other party, making personal filing and service thereof not practicable.

ATTY. JAI
Reinald Raven L. Guerrero Legal Research
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT

RIZAL ALIH, NASIM ALIH, AISAN ALIH, MIJAL ALIH, OMAR ALIH, EDRIS MUKSAN, MULSIDI
WARADIL, BILLY ASMAD RAMSID ASALI, BANDING USMAN, ANGGANG HADANI,
WARMIKHAN HAPA, GABRAL JIKIRI, ALLAN TAN, MUJAHIRIN MARAJUKI, KENNEDY
GONZALES, URDUJA ALIH, MERLA ALIH, and NURAISA ALIH VDA DE FEROLINO,
Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. L-12345

For: Prohibition and Mandamus with
Preliminary Injunction and
Restraining Order

MAJOR GENERAL DELFIN C. CASTRO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMANDER SOUTHCOM AND

REGIONAL UNIFIED COMMAND, REGION IX, ZAMBOANGA CITY, COLONEL ERNESTO
CALUPIG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE SPECIAL FORCES GROUP
(AIRBORNE) AND INTERNAL DEFENSE COMMAND, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS IdC MAJOR
ARNOLD BLANCO IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE PHILIPPINE
MARINES AND 1ST LIEUTENANT DARWIN GUERRA IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTS SUPERVISOR,
INTERNAL DEFENSE COMMAND, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

COME NOW RESPONDENT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable
Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titled case
and aver that:

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On November 25, 1984, a contingent of more than two hundred Philippine marines and
elements of the home defense forces raided the compound occupied by the petitioners at Gov.
Alvarez street, Zamboanga City, in search of loose firearms, ammunition and other explosives;

2. The initial reaction of the people inside the compound was to resist the invasion with a
burst of gunfire. However, the soldiers returned fire and a bloody shoot-out ensued, resulting in a
number of casualties.;

3. The besieged compound surrendered the following morning, and sixteen male occupants
were arrested, later to be finger-printed, paraffin-tested and photographed over their objection. The
military also inventoried and confiscated nine M16 rifles, one M14 rifle, nine rifle grenades, and
several rounds of ammunition found in the premises;

4. On December 21, 1984, the petitioners came to this Court in a petition for prohibition
and mandamus with preliminary injunction and restraining order. Their purpose was to recover the
articles seized from them, to prevent these from being used as evidence against them, and to
challenge their finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing as violative of their right
against self-incrimination.;
 5. The respondents, while admitting the absence of the required such warrant, sought to justify
their act on the ground that they were acting under superior orders. There was also the suggestion
that the measure was necessary because of the aggravation of the peace and order problem
generated by the assassination of Mayor Cesar Climaco.

II. ISSUE OF THE CASE

A.) THE RESPONDENTS ARE JUSTIFIED IN CONDUCTING THE

WARRANTLESS ARREST, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

III. DISCUSSION

Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In the instant case, it can be noted the petitioners herein are indeed actually committing an offense
by the act of firing on the Philippine marines, which would give rise to a probable cause to believe
that the petitioners are up to something not good, thus meriting their arrest, and thus is valid, and
the subsequent search valid for being done incidental to a valid arrest, pursuant to Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable

Supreme Court that Petitioners prayer for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction
and restraining order be DENIED and the petition DISMISSED for being clearly unmeritorious.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Makati City for Manila City, Philippines. September 22, 2017.

ATTY. PAOLO COELHO

IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005
PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011
Roll of Attorney No. 2005-001023
MCLE Compliance No. III 000899
Copy Furnished:

ATTY. JEFFREY A. ARCHER

Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium,
Espana, Manila
Reinald Raven L. Guerrero Legal Research
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT

ROBERTO UMIL, ROLANDO DURAL and RENATO VILLANUEVA, MANOLITA O. UMIL and
NICANOR P. DURAL, FELICITAS V. SESE,
Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. L-12345

For: PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS

FIDEL V. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, BRIG. GEN. RAMON MONTANO, BRIG. GEN.
ALEXANDER AGUIRRE,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

COME NOW RESPONDENT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable
Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titled case
and aver that:

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt
Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential information which was received by their
office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital
with a gunshot wound;

2. That the wounded man in the said hospital was among the five (5) male "sparrows" who
murdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about
12:00 o'clock noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan
City;

3. The wounded man's name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon,"
twenty-two (22) years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes, Bian, Laguna however
it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural;

4. Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Servicesof the CAPCOM, for
security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively identified by the eyewitnesses
as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.

II. ISSUE OF THE CASE

A.) THE WARRANTLESS ARREST CONDUCTED TO ROLANDO DURAL WAS

LAWFUL AND VALID.
 III. DISCUSSION

The arrest Rolando Dural without warrant is justified, having been committing an offense, when
arrested because Dural was arrested for being a member of the New People's Army, an outlawed
organization, where membership penalized, and for subversion which, like rebellion is, under the
doctrine of Garcia vs. Enrile, a continuing offense, thus:

The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such

crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance on the occasion thereof,
or incident thereto, or in connection therewith under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045,
are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common offenses,
aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable

Supreme Court that Petitioners prayer for petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED and the
petition DISMISSED for being clearly unmeritorious.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Makati City for Manila City, Philippines. September 22, 2017.

ATTY. PAOLO COELHO

IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005
PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011
Roll of Attorney No. 2005-001023
MCLE Compliance No. III 000899

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. JEFFREY A. ARCHER

Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium,
Espana, Manila
Reinald Raven L. Guerrero Legal Research

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-12345

For: Rape

DOROTEO BAAO,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

COME NOW RESPONDENT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable
Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titled case
and aver that:

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rowena Federio, the complainant, is a school-dropout at thirteen, finishing only Grade I,

and of limited native intelligence.;

2. The girl claims that was raped five times by the accused-appellant, three times in December
1982, and twice in February 1983. 4 Shortly after the fifth rape, on March 4, 1983.

3. All the five rapes were perpetrated in substantially the same way, through the use of force
and with threat of death for resisting during the act and for reporting it thereafter.

4. The loss of the complainant's virginity and her several accounts of sexual intercourse were
borne out by the testimony of Dr. Maximo Reyes, medico-legal officer of the National
Bureau of Investigation, who also made the report saying, "Genital findings compatible
with sexual intercourse with a man on or about the alleged date of commission";
5. Doroteo avers that he was not in the place of occurrence, when the alleged rapes were
committed but with his daughter at her house at the Manila International Airport in
Baclaran. This was corroborated by his daughter, Alicia Baao, who said he was in her house
from December 10 to 23, 1983, and practically did not leave the place during that period.
The reason for his stay, she said, was some carpentry work he had to do for her.

V. ISSUE OF THE CASE

B.) THE ACCUSED COULD NOT HAVE COMMITED THE CRIME BEING NOT
IN THE PLACE OF COMMISSION DURING THE ALLEGED TIME OF
COMMISSION.
 VI. DISCUSSION

It is quite apparent with the circumstance of the case that the herein accused could not have
perpetrated the crime for the reason that:

1. The accused was not in the place of the alleged commission of the crime for he was in
Baclaran, Metro Manila with his daughter for carpentry work for the considerable
amount of time, and this was duly corroborated by his daughter;
2. The given the hesitance of the herein complainant during her testimony before the trial
court, one could only surmise that the complainant herself is in doubt of her own
statements or, at the least, her own knowledge of the crime, thus establishing doubt as
to the veracity of her claims;
3. Though the medico-legal officer found genital findings compatible with sexual
intercourse with a man on or about the alleged date of commission, the said test did
not identify the perpetrator of the crime, which would establish reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the herein accused, thus meriting dismissal or acquittal from the instant
case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable

Supreme Court that the herein accused be ACQUITTED from the instant case for being clearly
unmeritorious.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Makati City for Manila City, Philippines. September 22, 2017.

ATTY. PAOLO COELHO

IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005
PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011
Roll of Attorney No. 2005-001023
MCLE Compliance No. III 000899

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. JEFFREY A. ARCHER

Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium,
Espana, Manila
Reinald Raven L. Guerrero Legal Research

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC.,

AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

OUTLINE:
1. Introduction

2. Definition of Plagiarism

3. Factual Background

4. Averments of both parties

5. Decision of the Supreme Court

6. Conclusion

Imputation of a Plagiarism accusation with one of the members of the highest

and most honorable Court of the land, the Supreme Court is quite saddening as
it taints its credibility and reliability in terms of the perception, not only by the
local citizenry, but most of all, the international community. How can the
world rely on a Court whose decisions are being copied from other sources and
is claimed as its own? One can only imagine the pain and embarrassment it
incurs, not only to the honorable Supreme Court, but most importantly, the
whole Filipino Nation.

Plagiarism is one that is defined by the Blacks Law dictionary as the deliberate
and knowing presentation of another person's original ideas or creative
expressions as one's own. By the definition alone, it may be inferred that
plagiarism necessitates the presence of intent to attribute anothers work as
ones very own. However, most jurisprudence holds that of plagiarism as that
of a malum prohibitum, or that which is consummated by mere commission of
the act, which, in this case, is the copying or attributing anothers intellectual
work as ones own. One in which the intent to own or attribute as ones own,
is immaterial as long as the idea or the writing, or the intellectual ownership of
another is used as the perpetrators own.

The instant case rooted from the special civil action of certiorari with
application for preliminary mandatory injunction against the Executive
Secretary, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, and the
Office of the Solicitor General filed by Isabelita C. Vinuya and about 70 other
elderly women, in G.R. No. 162230, claiming that in destroying villages in the
Philippines during the World War II, the Japanese army systematically raped
them and a number of other women, seizing them and holding them in houses
or cells where soldiers repeatedly ravished and abused them. While they have
been approaching the Executive Department, requesting assistance in filing
claims against the Japanese military officers who violated them, the
Department declined, saying that petitioners individual claims had already
been fully satisfied under the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.
For the dismissal of the said action filed by Vinuya and others, Justice Mariano
C. del Castillo wrote the decision for the court. A decision which the foreign
writers questions for having contained therein their writings without attributing
the same to the original or real authors, thereby, presumably attributing the said
writings to the Associate Justice del Castilo.

Justice del Castillo was imputed with a charge of plagiarism for allegedly
citing, as his own, the works of three foreign writers namely Tams, Criddle-
Descent and Ellis in the Vinuya Case and accused the former of manifest
intellectual theft and outright plagiarism. The complainants averred, as
mention the preceding sentences, that to constitute plagiarism, the intent of the
perpetrator is immaterial, and that what it requires is only the mere act of non-
citing of the sources of copies or referred materials. They rely on the University
of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals and Arokiaswamy
William Margaret Celine case, arguing that standards on plagiarism in the
academe should apply with more force to the judiciary.

Justice del Castillo, along with his counsel, holds the defense of the lack of
intent to copy or attribute the writings as del Castillos, but rather, it was a mere
error on the part of Justice del Castillos legal researcher, which was done when
the latter accidentally removed the citations when she was finalizing her
portion of the work. An error, of which is not material and does not merit the
instant charge of plagiarism against the said Justice. Further, they also aver that
Justice del Castillo could not have intended the act of non-citation, because of
the reputation of the said international authors.

While there was apparent commission of the act which would have been
constitutive of plagiarism, the Supreme Court decided in the favor of its Justice
Mariano C. del Castillo. In deciding, the Supreme Court instilled the
materiality of intent as to the commission of the crime of plagiarism. That for
the charge of plagiarism to prosper, the intent to copy, or attribute anothers
work as his own, is indispensable, and must be present if the said charge is to
prosper. And that plagiarism is a form of fraud, in that the intent to deceive is
inherent, thus the intent must be present.

Inherent in every crime is the ill intent, as what has been repeatedly taught in
criminal law, and it is the root of the evil doings of every person and thus its
presence must be determined, for it would be painful if we subject a person in
good faith into a criminal punishment which he/she did not so intend to
commit, so as to damage his integrity and self-worth, especially in a case where
a high official of the land is being imputed with such charge, without him, even
intending it to be done. As human as we are, mistakes are very much possible,
and thus, it should take more than just a simple mistake without intent
especially to an Associate Justiceto render a case meritorious against a
person whose guilt has not been substantially proved or whose intent in the
commission of the act is not even manifest.