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, farmer, and a resident of Barrio Talaan, Lian, Batangas. DEFENSE COUNCEL: With the Courts permission. Do you remember where you were on the evening of June 12? A: Q: I remember that I was home that evening of June 12. 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 twoyear-old daughter was then running a fever. Q: A: rest. Q: A: Q: A: Is it possible you went to bed early that evening? I remember I slept late because I had to watch our sick daughter while my wife took her turn to

Was the farm visible that night? The night was not so dark because the moon shone brightly in the sky. What time did you go to bed after watching your sick daughter? 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. That is all.

DEFENSE COUNSEL:

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 learned.

First, try to identify the legal dispute involved in the above case. Obviously the legal dispute in (a) the governments charge that Ronald raped Julia and (b) the latters 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 in bold print, and place it right before as you do your summarizing. Using this issue as 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 read: 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 explanations 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 circumstances. [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 story 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 to its proper context. Consequently, you need them in your outline.] PROSECUTOR: With the Courts 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: A: Q: A: Q: Why do you know him? He raped me. [Note: Surely relevant.] Where did this happen? It happened on the rice field near Marios house. [Note: This answers the question where?] How did Ronald rape you?

A: I struggled to get free but he pointed a 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?

A: 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?

A: I kept the matter to myself for a while. [Note: Is this relevant? Yes. Ordinarily, the victim of a grave wrongdoing would complain about it to someone. Julias 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 Julias justification for incurring delay in reporting the crime, it should be relevant like the preceding answer.] They loved me so much. [Note: That her parents and brothers loved her so much would have no bearing on the issue 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 was 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: This reaction is limited to her parents and brothers; it is irrelevant to the rape issue.]. Q: So what did you do after that?

A: I went to the police to complain. [Note: Is this relevant? Yes. Complaining to the police about the commission of a crime lends credence to the claim that it took place.] Q: A: Q: A: Q: Is that all you did? I also submitted myself to medical examination. [Note: Same reason as the above.] When did Ronald rape you? He raped me on June 12 at 7 p.m. [Note: States the time.] 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. [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 whether 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?

A: 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 the 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 Julias 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 ignored him?

A: The married couple danced after supper and people joined in. [Note: This facts has no bearing at all to the rape.] Q: What did you do after the 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 anything unusual happen during your walk home?

A: When I was about fifty meters from Marios house, Ronald came from behind me and requested that he walk me home. Q: What was your 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 also sets the stage for the rape event.] 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?

A: 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?

A: He covered my mouth with a hand so I could not shout. He pointed a knife at me and me to yield at 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?

A: I took a shortcut across Marios 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 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: A: How was it? I was used to it and I managed very well. [Note: Same observation as above.]

PROSECUTOR: That is all. One thing wonderful about analyzing 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 relationships. 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 your paper. For example, in analyzing whether Julias 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 in her credibility.