Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
accused Rodel Singson with rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 194719 that province1 in Criminal Case 1841.
Appellee,
Present:
MJ2 testified that, through text messages by mobile phones, Rodel
VELASCO, JR.,
became her boyfriend and their relation lasted from January to September
J., Chairperson,
- versus - PERALTA, 2003. But they hardly saw each other after MJ studied in Manila. They met
ABAD,
when MJ came home to Santiago for vacation in the summer of 2003. After
MENDOZA,
and a few months, however, she broke up with Rodel to concentrate on her
PERLAS-
studies.
BERNABE, JJ.
RODEL SINGSON,
Appellant. Promulgated:
In the evening of December 22, 2003 MJ and her mother, LK,
________________ attended the simbang gabi from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. After the mass, LK
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
wanted to join some church members to go caroling. Since MJ felt sleepy,
DECISION she bade her mother leave to go home at about 11:30 p.m. On reaching
home, MJ prepared to go to bed but someone knocked at their door.
ABAD, J.:
Thinking it was her mother, she opened it and, to her surprise, saw Rodel
standing at the door.
In this rape case, when the victims mother got home and found her
daughters bedroom locked, she looked for the key, opened her daughters
Rodel said that he wanted to talk to MJ about renewing their
bedroom with it, and found her naked in bed with the accused hiding
underneath it. relation. She was at first hesitant to entertain him because he appeared
drunk but she eventually let him in. After talking with Rodel at the living
not offer an explanation.6 Q: And what did you do when [MJ] instructed you
to hide under her bed?
A: I went under the bed,
The testimony of LK, MJs mother, is just as dubious. She said that
sir.12 x x x x
on entering her daughters room, she saw MJ naked in bed. Seeing a mans
pants on the floor, LK looked under the bed and saw Rodel hiding there. LK A: Her brother peeped under the bed and he saw me
tried to rouse her daughter but she would not wake up, prompting LK to cry so he pulled me and punched me, sir.13
for help. When the barangay chairman and the tanods arrived, they pulled xxxx
Rodel from under the bed. It was only then that MJ came around and told
A: After that, they took [MJ] out of her room and
her mother that she had been raped.7 brought her to another room, sir.
xxxx
And when Rodel left, MJ did not see him off at the door to lock it
A: Because I could not accept what happened
as he went out. Her excuse in not locking the door was that her mother was because my mother was asking me what
still out.21 But, notably, when Rodel supposedly came and knocked at the happened, sir.24
door after she got home at 11:30 p.m., she had to let him in because it was xxxx
22
already locked.
Q: What did you tell your mother after you regained
consciousness?
A: I cried, sir.
MJ also said that she was no longer naked when she woke up and
heard her brother screaming by the bedroom window, with Rodel in a tight Q: What else did you tell your mother after you
23 regained your consciousness?
grip. If this were true, somebody must have slipped her clothes back on A: I was just crying, sir.
while she was out cold. This contradicts LKs testimony that her son had to
wrap MJ in a blanket before taking her out of the room. Q: Did you not tell her that Rodel Singson sprayed
something to your face?
A: I told her, sir.
In insisting that she already had her dress on when she woke up,
Q: Immediately after you regained your
MJ was apparently steering clear of the fact that her mother had caught her consciousness, is that what you mean?
A: No, sir it took sometime.
naked, with Rodel in his underwear beneath the bed. MJ simply wanted to
save her dignity at Rodels expense. Apparently, what bothered MJ more was Q: Why did you not tell immediately?
not the supposed rape but how she would explain the compromising A: (No answer of the witness).
situation in which her mother found her. Thus MJ testified: Court: What is the span of time did you tell to your
mother?
A: I do not know because I was crying and
crying, sir.25 (Emphasis supplied)
21 Id. at 23.
22 Id. at 20-21. 24 Id. at 26-27.
23 Id. at 6. 25 Id. at 29.
tears and we can not talk to her, sir.28
(Emphasis supplied)
MJs above testimony also contradicts her mothers original claim
that when her daughter woke up she immediately said that Rodel raped
The barangay chairman, MJs aunt and LKs sister, testified that on
her.26 Of course, LK had to remedy this contradiction by subsequently her arrival the first thing she heard was that a man entered the house and
saying that MJ mentioned the supposed rape only when the barangay that her sister found MJ naked. No one told the barangay chairman at that
authorities showed up. Thus, LK said:
point that MJ had been raped. No wonder, the first thing the barangay
chairman did was to go into the room and ask MJ if Rodel had taken her
Q: Now, what did your daughter tell you?
virginity from her. Thus:
A: Actually my daughter narrated the incident to
the barangay captain not to me because during
that time I can not speak and I was shocked, sir.
Q: Who told you that her daughter was raped?
A: My elder sister told me that a man entered
Q: So when did your daughter tell to the barangay
their house but I was not yet informed that
captain what happened to her?
[MJ] was raped.
A: I can no longer remember because that whole
afternoon I was very weak and my body can not
Q: So, how did the mother of [MJ] tell you that her
go through it, sir.
daughter [MJ] was raped?
A: She was the first one who saw [MJ] naked.
Q: So it was the barangay captain who told you
that your daughter was raped because your
Q: That was told to you by her, is that correct?
daughter told to her about that?
A: Yes, sir.
A: Yes, sir. 27
xxxx
xxxx
Q: When did you ask [MJ] about that Madam
Q: So you did not know that morning that your Witness?
daughter was raped?
A: After my elder sister told me that she saw
A: I dont know, sir.
[MJ] naked so I went to [MJ] to verify if her
Q: When did you talk first with your daughter womanhood was taken.29
after that incident?
xxxx
A: Maybe two days after the incident because she
herself was also crying. She was always in
not also make sense. The story is that MJ got home at about 11:30 p.m. 31 exception. On close examination, the prosecutions evidence left much to be
Rodel came around midnight and they talked for about 30 to 45 minutes. desired. With so many inconsistencies and incompatibilities with common
This means that Rodel left at 12:45 a.m. at the latest. Since he came right experience, the Court is unable to see the unfiltered truth. To conclude, the
back into the house, this means that, if the prosecution evidence were to be evidence failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence of
believed, he raped MJ at about 12:45 a.m. Thus, at least one hour would the accused.
32
have passed before MJs mother, LK, came home at 2:00 a.m. So what
reason would Rodel have for staying around in his underwear after raping WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the appeal, SETS ASIDE
MJ? And, although the bedroom had a window through which Rodel could the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 25, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR-
easily have escaped, he chose to dive under the bed. These circumstances HC 03161 as well as the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31 in Criminal Case 1841, and ACQUITS
30 Id. at 17. the accused-appellant Rodel Singson of the crime charged on ground of
31Supra note 4, at 13.
32 Supra note 7, at 6. reasonable doubt.
The Court orders his immediate RELEASE from custody unless
he is being held for some other lawful cause and ORDERS the Director of
the Bureau of Corrections to immediately implement this Decision and to
inform the Court within five days from its receipt of the date appellant was
actually released from confinement. Costs de oficio.
ATTESTATION
SO ORDERED.
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
RENATO C.
CORONA
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Chief Justice
Associate Justice
DEL
CASTILLO,
EN BANC
ABAD,
SERENO, JJ.
CORONA,
C.J.,
CARPIO,
Promulgated:
CARPIO
MORALES,
October 12,
VELASCO,
2010
JR.,
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-
DECISION
DE CASTRO,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
The Background Facts Petitioners wanted the Court to render judgment, compelling the
Executive Department to espouse their claims for official apology and other
forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice
Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya and about 70 other elderly women, and other international tribunals.
all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, filed with the Court in G.R.
No. 162230 a special civil action of certiorari with application for
preliminary mandatory injunction against the Executive Secretary, the On April 28, 2010, the Court rendered judgment dismissing
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, and the Office of the petitioners action. Justice Mariano C. del Castillo wrote the decision for the
Solicitor General. Court. The Court essentially gave two reasons for its decision: it cannot
grant the petition because, first, the Executive Department has the
exclusive prerogative under the Constitution and the law to determine
Petitioners claimed that in destroying villages in the Philippines whether to espouse petitioners claim against Japan; and, second, the
during World War II, the Japanese army systematically raped them and a Philippines is not under any obligation in international law to espouse their
number of other women, seizing them and holding them in houses or cells claims.
where soldiers repeatedly ravished and abused them.
the matter for hearing. deliberate intention to appropriate the original authors work, and that the
On August 18, 2010 Mr. Christian J. Tams wrote Chief Justice Committee to hear the Justices court researcher, whose name need not be
Renato C. Corona that, although relevant sentences in the Courts decision mentioned here, explain the research work that went into the making of
were taken from his work, he was given generic reference only in the the decision in the Vinuya case. The Committee granted the request.
Counsels for Justice Del Castillo later asked to be heard with the anothers work. Counsel invoked the Courts ruling in University of the
other parties not in attendance so they could make submissions that their Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals and Arokiaswamy William
37
Statement of the University of the Philippines College of Law Faculty
dated July 27, 2010, Exhibit J of the petitioners. 38 Transcript of Stenographic Notes taken on August 26, 2010, p. 31.
Margaret Celine,39 arguing that standards on plagiarism in the academe
should apply with more force to the judiciary.
The Courts Rulings
After the hearing, the Committee gave the parties ten days to file
Because of the pending motion for reconsideration in the Vinuya
their respective memoranda. They filed their memoranda in due course.
case, the Court like its Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards will
Subsequently after deliberation, the Committee submitted its unanimous
purposely avoid touching the merits of the Courts decision in that case or
findings and recommendations to the Court.
the soundness or lack of soundness of the position it has so far taken in the
same. The Court will deal, not with the essential merit or persuasiveness of
the foreign authors works, but how the decision that Justice Del Castillo
The Issues
wrote for the Court appropriated parts of those works and for what
purpose the decision employed the same.
2. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo twisted the works of The Passages from Tams
these authors to make it appear that such works supported the Courts
position in the Vinuya decision.
40
Websters New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, Macmillan USA,
39 G.R. No. 134625, August 31, 1999, 313 SCRA 404. p. 1031.
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
Petitioners point out that the Vinuya decision lifted passages from mere inadvertent slip in attribution rather than a case of manifest intellectual
Tams book, Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law (2006) theft and outright plagiarism. If the Justices citations were imprecise, it
and used them in Footnote 69 with what the author thought was a mere would just be a case of bad footnoting rather than one of theft or deceit. If it
generic reference. But, although Tams himself may have believed that the were otherwise, many would be target of abuse for every editorial error, for
41 every mistake in citing pagination, and for every technical detail of form.
footnoting in this case was not an appropriate form of referencing, he
and petitioners cannot deny that the decision did attribute the source or
sources of such passages. Justice Del Castillo did not pass off Tams work as
his own. The Justice primarily attributed the ideas embodied in the The Passages from Ellis
passages to Bruno Simma, whom Tams himself credited for them. Still,
and Criddle-Descent
Footnote 69 mentioned, apart from Simma, Tams article as another source
of those ideas.
Petitioners also attack the Courts decision for lifting and using as
footnotes, without attribution to the author, passages from the published
The Court believes that whether or not the footnote is sufficiently
work of Ellis. The Court made the following statement on page 27 of its
detailed, so as to satisfy the footnoting standards of counsel for petitioners
decision, marked with Footnote 65 at the end:
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
We fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and
that it gave him somewhat less credit than he deserved. Such attribution sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as legally
altogether negates the idea that Justice Del Castillo passed off the prohibited under contemporary international law. 65 xxx
In the old days, the common practice was that after a Justice would
have assigned a case for study and report, the researcher would source his
materials mostly from available law books and published articles on print.
Admittedly, the Vinuya decision lifted the above, including their
When he found a relevant item in a book, whether for one side of the issue
footnotes, from Criddle-Descents article, A Fiduciary Theory of Jus
or for the other, he would place a strip of paper marker on the appropriate
Cogens.43 Criddle-Descents footnotes were carried into the Vinuya
page, pencil mark the item, and place the book on his desk where other
decisions own footnotes but no attributions were made to the two authors
relevant books would have piled up. He would later paraphrase or copy the
in those footnotes.
marked out passages from some of these books as he typed his manuscript
on a manual typewriter. This occasion would give him a clear opportunity to
attribute the materials used to their authors or sources.
The Explanation
First Finding
xxx
_____________________________
When researcher X copies and pastes the above passage and its
footnote into a manuscript-in-the-making in his computer, the footnote 23 From Tolentino.
number would, given the computer program in use, automatically change
24 3 Von Tuhr 296; 1 Valverde 291.
and adjust to the footnoting sequence of researcher Xs manuscript. Thus, if
the preceding footnote in the manuscript when the passage from Tolentino
was pasted on it is 23, Tolentinos footnote would automatically change from
the original Footnote 15 to Footnote 24.
The tag is of course temporary and would later have to go. It serves
but a marker to help researcher X maneuver the passage into the right spot
in his final manuscript.
As it happened, the Microsoft word program does not have a
function that raises an alarm when original materials are cut up or pruned.
The mistake of Justice Del Castillos researcher is that, after the The portions that remain simply blend in with the rest of the manuscript,
Justice had decided what texts, passages, and citations were to be retained adjusting the footnote number and removing any clue that what should stick
including those from Criddle-Descent and Ellis, and when she was already together had just been severed.
cleaning up her work and deleting all subject tags, she unintentionally
deleted the footnotes that went with such tagswith disastrous effect.
testimony. Justice Del Castillo merely explained that there was every enhance rather than diminish their informative value. Both Justice Del
intention to attribute all sources whenever due and that there was never Castillo and his researcher gain nothing from the omission. Thus, the failure
any malicious intent to appropriate anothers work as our own, which as it to mention the works of Criddle-Decent and Ellis was unquestionably due
to inadvertence or pure oversight.
turns out is a true statement. He recalled how the Court deliberated upon
the case more than once, prompting major revisions in the draft of the
decision. In the process, (s)ources were re-studied, discussions modified,
passages added or deleted. Nothing in the letter suggests a cover-up.
Petitioners of course insist that intent is not material in
Indeed, it did not preclude a researchers inadvertent error. committing plagiarism since all that a writer has to do, to avoid the charge,
is to enclose lifted portions with quotation marks and acknowledge the
sources from which these were taken. 46 Petitioners point out that the
And it is understandable that Justice Del Castillo did not initially Court should apply to this case the ruling in University of the Philippines
disclose his researchers error. He wrote the decision for the Court and was Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals and Arokiaswamy William Margaret
expected to take full responsibility for any lapse arising from its Celine.47 They argue that standards on plagiarism in the academe should
preparation. What is more, the process of drafting a particular decision for apply with more force to the judiciary.
the Court is confidential, which explained his initial request to be heard on
the matter without the attendance of the other parties.
Notably, neither Justice Del Castillo nor his researcher had a provides no room for errors in research, an unrealistic position considering
motive or reason for omitting attribution for the lifted passages to Criddle- that there is hardly any substantial written work in any field of discipline
Descent or to Ellis. The latter authors are highly respected professors of that is free of any mistake. The theory places an automatic universal curse
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 46 Supra note 6, at 41.
47 Supra note 7.
even on errors that, as in this case, have reasonable and logical Second Finding
explanations.
The Court also adopts the Committees finding that the omission of
Indeed, the 8th edition of Blacks Law Dictionary defines attributions to Criddle-Descent and Ellis did not bring about an impression
plagiarism as the deliberate and knowing presentation of another person's that Justice Del Castillo himself created the passages that he lifted from
48
original ideas or creative expressions as one's own. Thus, plagiarism their published articles. That he merely got those passages from others
presupposes intent and a deliberate, conscious effort to steal anothers work remains self-evident, despite the accidental deletion. The fact is that he still
and pass it off as ones own. imputed the passages to the sources from which Criddle-Descent and Ellis
borrowed them in the first place.
on evidence that she misappropriated the work of others, passing them off
as her own. This is not the case here since, as already stated, Justice Del
Castillo actually imputed the borrowed passages to others. xxx Both juridical capacity and capacity to
act are not rights, but qualities of persons; hence, they
cannot be alienated or renounced.43
_____________________________
50
Bast and Samuels, Plagiarism and Legal Scholarship in the Age of
Information Sharing: The Need for Intellectual Honesty, 57 CATH. U. L.
REV 777, 800 (2008).
49 Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening (1923). 51 Websters New World College Dictionary, 3rd Edition, p. 1445.
On occasions judges and justices have mistakenly cited the wrong
sources, failed to use quotation marks, inadvertently omitted necessary
The fact is that, first, since the attributions to Criddle-Descent and information from footnotes or endnotes. But these do not, in every case,
Ellis were accidentally deleted, it is impossible for any person reading the amount to misconduct. Only errors that are tainted with fraud, corruption,
decision to connect the same to the works of those authors as to conclude 52
or malice are subject of disciplinary action. This is not the case here.
that in writing the decision Justice Del Castillo twisted their intended Justice Del Castillos acts or omissions were not shown to have been
messages. And, second, the lifted passages provided mere background
impelled by any of such disreputable motives.53 If the rule were otherwise,
facts that established the state of international law at various stages of its
no judge or justice, however competent, honest, or dedicated he may be,
development. These are neutral data that could support conflicting 54
can ever hope to retire from the judiciary with an unblemished record.
theories regarding whether or not the judiciary has the power today to
order the Executive Department to sue another country or whether the
duty to prosecute violators of international crimes has attained the status
No Inexcusable Negligence
of jus cogens.
But this assumes that Justice Del Castillo abdicated the writing of What is important is that, in this case, Justice Del Castillo retained
the Vinuya decision to his researcher, which is contrary to the evidence control over the writing of the decision in the Vinuya case without,
adduced during the hearing. As his researcher testified, the Justice set the however, having to look over his researchers shoulder as she cleaned up
direction that the research and study were to take by discussing the issues her draft report to ensure that she hit the right computer keys. The Justices
with her, setting forth his position on those issues, and reviewing and researcher was after all competent in the field of assignment given her. She
commenting on the study that she was putting together until he was finished law from a leading law school, graduated third in her class, served
56
completely satisfied with it. In every sense, Justice Del Castillo was in as Editor-in Chief of her schools Law Journal, and placed fourth in the bar
control of the writing of the report to the Court, which report eventually examinations when she took it. She earned a masters degree in
became the basis for the decision, and determined its final outcome. International Law and Human Rights from a prestigious university in the
United States under the Global-Hauser program, which counsel for
petitioners concedes to be one of the top post graduate programs on
Assigning cases for study and research to a court attorney, the International Law in the world. Justice Del Castillo did not exercise bad
equivalent of a law clerk in the United States Supreme Court, is standard judgment in assigning the research work in the Vinuya case to her.
practice in the high courts of all nations. This is dictated by necessity. With
about 80 to 100 cases assigned to a Justice in our Court each month, it
would be truly senseless for him to do all the studies and research, going to Can errors in preparing decisions be prevented? Not until
the library, searching the internet, checking footnotes, and watching the computers cease to be operated by human beings who are vulnerable to
punctuations. If he does all these by himself, he would have to allocate at human errors. They are hypocrites who believe that the courts should be as
least one to two weeks of work for each case that has been submitted for error-free as they themselves are.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO