Essay Tactics

8/20/2019 Essay Tactics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/essay-tactics 1/10

All r ights reserved by Ju ris ts Review Center, Inc. (JRCI), 2015. This work is th e intellectual property of JRCIand the unauthor ized co pying , s to rage , record ing , o r d i ssemina t ion of th i s work or any par t the reof ( inc lud ingthe pos t ing of th i s work on the in te rnet ) wi thout the express wr i t t en cons en t o f JRCI i s i l lega l and sh a l l bepros ecuted to the ful l extent of the law by the bringing of th e appro priate cr iminal , c ivi l , or adm inistrat iveproceed ings , inc lud ing p roceed ings wi th the Off ice o f the B ar Conf idan t .

Primer on B ar Essay Exam Tactics & Strategies by Prof . Manuel R. Riguera for Jurists Bar Review Center ™

of 10

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER ™

PRIMER ON BAR ESSAY EXAMTACTICS & STRATEGIES

Prof. Manuel R. Riguera

• Fact-based essay questions are the norm in the bar examinations. Use of MCQsdiscontinued, at least for the 2015 Bar.

• SC 2013 Bar Bulletin 1

The basic elements of problem solving that the Examiners shall particularly look for are theexaminee's (FLIA):

(1) proper understanding and appreciation of the facts, particularly of the components ordetails that can be material in resolving the given problem;

(2) his or her appreciation of the applicable law/s that may come into play;

(3) recognition of the issue/s posed; and the

( 4) resolution of the issues through the analysis and application of the law to the givenfacts.

The examinee‘s presentation and articulation of his or her answer shall also be givenweight.

• SC 2013 Bar Bulletin 1, other SC bar issuances, and advice of former bar examinees,examiners, and law professors emphasize the importance of LOGIC in the bar exam.

• The bar examinee must be logic-driven or argument/driven, not conclusion-driven.

• Your answer should demonstrate your ability to apply the law to the given facts, and toreason logically in a lawyerlike manner to a sound conclusion from the given premises.

• Prof. Reynaldo Geronimo, former bar examiner: The examiner can give you credit for ananswer that is not exactly correct, but is well-written and logical. Remember: Your answerwill not be graded on whether you are right or wrong but on how you present your case.

• PRACTICAL LOGIC FOR THE BAR

• Logic has many branches. The tools of logic which we will be using are inductive reasoning,deductive reasoning, and analogical reasoning (DIA).

• INDUCTIVE REASONING: Reasoning from the particular to the universal. In bar,reasoning from the facts to the rule/s.





of 10

• DEDUCTIVE REASONING: Reasoning from the universal to the particular. In bar, applyingthe rule/s to the relevant facts.

• ANALOGICAL REASONING: Reasoning from an identical/similar situation to the presentsituation. In bar, reasoning using precedents, textbook examples and Q&As.

• Flow chart of analysis and argumentation

• LOGICAL TOOLS ESSAY QUESTION ISSUE/RULE RESOLUTION/CONCLUSION WRITTEN ANSWER

• Analysis and Argumentation

• ANALYSIS: The process of determining the resolution and conclusion (answer) using thetools of logic.

ARGUMENTATION. The process of presenting the answer in a logical and organized form.

READING & ANSWERING A BAR ESSAY QUESTION: OUTLINE OF STEPS

1. PREPARE A CRARC (CONCLUSION, RULE, APPLICATION, RESOLUTION &CONCLUSION) MATRIX. THE MATRIX WILL BE USED TO ANALYZE, OUTLINE AND THENPRESENT THE ANSWER.

An outline is indispensable in coming up with a logical and organized answer. Jurists hasdeveloped the CRARC analytical matrix to assist the examinee in outlining and writing a logicaland organized bar exam answer.

The biggest mistake many examinees commit is to begin writing the minute they finish

reading the question in the hope that as they go along thoughts will come to them and the writingwill compose itself. Answers written without planning tend to be too long, unfocused, anddisorganized.

Outlining the answer before writing gives the test-taker an opportunity to think through thequestion, discard irrelevant issues and concepts, focus on the critical facts, and organize theanswer in a logical fashion.

SC recommends outlining: As a good rule to follow, draw an outline of the proposed answer- after reading the question and understanding what it requires, take some time to note (on ascratch paper) a brief outline of the proposed answer. The examinee can use the questionnaire butnot the exam booklet to do the outline. The outline allows him/her to systematically present all thepertinent information in a logical order. (SC 2013 Bar Bulletin 5, 2014 Bar Guidelines).

• Jurists CRARC Matrix

Jurists has developed the CRARC matrix to assist the examinee in outlining his answer.The CRARC matrix is superior to existing matrixes or formats (like IRAC) since the examinee mayuse it for the triple purpose of analyzing the bar exam question, outlining, and then presenting hisor her answer.





of 10

• JURISTS CRARC MATRIX

Call or ImmediateIssue/ConclusionCore Issue/Resolution

Rule

Application

• CALL/IMMEDIATE ISSUE: The call is the last sentence of the problem which asks aquestion or instructs the examinee to do something (e.g., decide, resolve, etc.) The call alsopresents the immediate issue, the answer to which is the conclusion.

• CORE ISSUE: The core or underlying issue. The core issue of a problem is an issue whichpresents a question of law and whose resolution would determine the conclusion to bereached by the examinee.

• RULE (SJD): The applicable rule or law or legal basis. It may be a statute, rule, orregulation; or jurisprudence; or a well-settled legal doctrine or concept.

• APPLICATION: The application of the rule to the relevant facts of the question.

• RESOLUTION: The response to the core or underlying issue.

• CONCLUSION: The response to the call.

2. READ THE CALL/IMMEDIATE ISSUE OF THE QUESTION. WRITE DOWN IN CRARC

MATRIX.

• Illustration (08 Remedial Bar Q)

• Domenico and Gen lived without the benefit of marriage for 20 years, during which time theypurchased properties together. After Domenico died without a will, Gen filed a petition forletters of administration. Domenico’s siblings opposed the same on the ground that Genhas no legal personality. Decide.

• CALL/IMMEDIATE ISSUE: Does Gen have the legal personality to file a petition for lettersof administration?

• 3. READ CAREFULLY THE FACT-SETTING TWICE. ENCIRCLE THE PARTIES ANDUNDERLINE WHAT APPEAR TO BE PRIMA FACIE RELEVANT FACTS. THIS WILLGIVE YOU HINTS/CLUES AS TO THE CORE ISSUE/APPLICABLE RULE/S.

• In your second reading, look for fact patterns or thematic facts which will trigger theapplicable rule or the core issue.

Illustration:





of 10

Domenico and Gen lived without the benefit of marriage for 20 years, during which time theypurchased properties together. After Domenico died without a will, Gen filed a petition for letters ofadministration. Domenico’s siblings opposed the same on the ground that Gen has no legalpersonality. Decide.

• CORE/UNDERLYING ISSUE: Does a person who had cohabited with another have aninterest in the properties acquired during the cohabitation?

• 4. WRITE DOWN THE APPLICABLE RULE/S AND CORE ISSUE IN THE MATRIX.

• When you have spotted the core issue, it means that you already know more or less theapplicable rule or at least have an idea as to what the applicable rule is. Here theapplicable rule is Art. 147/148 of the Family Code.

• Art. 147/148, Family Code: When a man and a woman cohabit together without the benefitof marriage, the property acquired by them shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

• 5. WRITE DOWN RELEVANT FACTS IN APPLICATION PORTION OF CRARC MATRIX.

NOTE THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE THE RELEVANT FACTS ONLY AFTER YOU HAVEDETERMINED THE CORE ISSUE/APPLICABLE RULE/S.

• 6. APPLY RULE TO CORE ISSUE TO COME UP WITH RESOLUTION. INDICATE INCRARC MATRIX.

• 7. INDICATE CONCLUSION (RESPONSE TO CALL) IN CRARC MATRIX.

Call or ImmediateIssue/Conclusion

Gen have legal personlty to file a pet for LOA? No

Core Issue/Resolution Person who cohabited with another have interest in prop acquired

by them? YesRule Prop acquired by persons cohabiting -> co-ownership

Application Lived together w/o marr 20 yrs, co-owner of props, interest

Note that in inputting the data into the Jurists CRARC matrix, you use keywords,abbreviations, and shorthand notations so as to save time.

• 8. PRESENT ANSWER USING CRARC FORMAT.

PRESENTING (PACKAGING) YOUR ANSWER

Jurists 4-Paragraph Format (CRAC)

1st paragraph: Conclusion.

2nd paragraph, the applicable rule/s.

3 rd paragraph, the application of the rule to the relevant facts.

4 th paragraph. Resolution & Conclusion.





of 10

The resolution and conclusion may be the same. Usually this happens if the call presentsan immediate legal issue. (E.g., Is the action for specific performance incapable of pecuniaryestimation?). Where the call does not present an immediate legal issue (e.g., How would you ruleon the motion to dismiss?), you will have a resolution and a conclusion.


• 1 st Paragraph: Conclusion

• The opposition to the petition for letters of administration on the ground that Gen has nolegal personality to file it is denied.

• Conclusion should be directly responsive to the call

• 2 nd Par: Rule/s

• Under the Family Code, a person who has cohabited with another is a co-owner of the properties acquired during the cohabitation. Under the Law on Special Proceedings, a person who has an interest in the estate has the legal personality to file a petition for lettersof administration.

• 3 rd Par: Application to Relevant Facts

• Here Domenico and Gen had lived without the benefit of marriage for 20 years and had purchased properties together.

• 4 th Par: Resolution & Conclusion

• Hence Gen is a co-owner of the properties she and Domenico purchased together andtherefore has an interest in his estate [Resolution]. Thus she has the legal personality to filethe petition for letters of administration and hence the opposition should be denied[Conclusion].

• ECHO METHOD: In writing your conclusion, adop t the call’s wordings .

Was the dismissal order of the Regional Trial Court correct?

No, the dismissal order of the Regional Trial Court was not correct.

• 2 nd Paragraph

STATUTE

“Under the Civil Code provisions on Property...”

“Under the Insurance Code...”

“Under Rules on Criminal Procedure...”





of 10

JURISPRUDENCE

“In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that …”

“The Supreme Court has held in Neypes v. Court of Appeal that …”

“The Supreme Court has held that…”

WELL-KNOWN LEGAL DOCTRINE OR RULE

“Under the doctrine of last clear chance”

“Under the doctrine of election of remedies”

“Under the Best Evidence Rule”

“Under the Statute of Frauds”

• INDUCTIVE REASONING: The process of reasoning from the facts to pinpoint theapplicable rule and/or core issue.

ANALOGICAL REASONING: Reasoning from identical or similar situations. If a previousidentical or similar situation has conclusion X, then the present situation should also haveconclusion X. Primarily analogical reasoning relies on precedents or jurisprudence. If the factsof the essay question are similar to a decided case, then the holding of the decided case may beused as the conclusion/resolution of the essay question.

ANATOMY OF A CASE DIGEST

• San Luis v San Luis , G.R. No. 133743, 6 February 2007:

• FACTS: Gov. San Luis married Ms Corwin in 1968. In 1973, Corwin divorced San Luis inthe USA. San Luis got married to Felicidad in 1974. They lived together and acquiredproperty. San Luis died in 1992. Felicidad filed a petition for letters of administration of theestate of San Luis. Some of San Luis’ children filed an opposition to the petition for lettersof administration contending that Felicidad is not the legal wife of San Luis and thus has nolegal personality to file the petition. Does Felicidad have the legal personality to file thepetition?

• HELD: A person who has cohabited with another even without the benefit of marriage hasthe legal personality to file a petition for letters of administration of her partner’s estate.

• RATIO DECIDENDI: Such a person has an interest in the estate of the other as a co-ownerpursuant to Article 147/148 of the Family Code.

• Illustration (08 Remedial Bar Q)






of 10

• 1 st Paragraph: Conclusion

• The opposition to the petition for letters of administration on the ground that Gen has nolegal personality to file it is denied.

• 2 nd paragraph: Rule (SC holding and ratio decidendi)

• In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that person who has cohabitedwith another without the benefit of marriage has a legal personality to file a petition forletters of administration over the latter’s estate . The reason is that she has a legal interestin the estate being a co-owner of the properties acquired pursuant to the Family Code.

• Hence the opposition to the petition on the ground that Gen has no legal personality to filethe same should be denied.

• In citing a decision, don’t forget the ratio dec idendi.

• In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that person who has cohabited

with another without the benefit of marriage has a legal personality to file a petition forletters of administration over the latter’s estate . The reason is that she has a legal interestin the estate being a co-owner of the properties acquired pursuant to the Family Code .(Ratio decidendi in italics).

• Note that in analogical reasoning from a precedent, a 3-paragraph format is used. No needfor application since the facts of the precedent are made clear to be the facts of the barproblem: “In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that …”

• Q&As from reviewers, textbooks, are source of precedential examples for analogicalreasoning.

• 2 RIGUERA, PRIMER-REVIEWER ON REMEDIAL LAW 275-76 (2013 ed.)

• Q Following a collision, Petitioner Jason Ivler was charged with two offenses: RecklessImprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Crim. Case No. 82367) for injuries sufferedby Evangeline Ponce, and Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide for the death ofNestor Ponce (Crim. Case No. 82366). Petitioner pleaded guilty to Crim. Case No. 82367and was meted the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, Petitioner moved toquash Criminal Case No. 82366 on the ground of double jeopardy. Should Criminal CaseNo. 82366 be quashed?

• A Yes. Criminal Case 82366 should be quashed since it relates to the same offense.Reckless Imprudence is a single crime and its consequences on persons and property arematerial only to determine the penalty. (Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 17 November 2010).

• 2014 Remedial Law Bar Q#2

• Q: McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting into brushes with the law. In oneincident, he drove his Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent its driver and

passengers in different directions. The pedicab driver died, while two (2) of the passengers





of 10

suffered slight physical injuries. Two (2) Informations were then filed against McJolly . One,for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property , and two, forReckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries . The latter case was scheduledfor arraignment earlier, on which occasion McJolly immediately pleaded guilty. He wasmeted out the penalty of public censure. A month later, the case for reckless imprudenceresulting in homicide was also set for arraignment. Instead of pleading, McJolly interposedthe defense of double jeopardy. Resolve.

• A The defense of double jeopardy is meritorious and the second information for recklessimprudence resulting in homicide should be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that there is double jeopardywhen two informations are filed based on the same act of reckless imprudence. The reason is thatreckless imprudence is a single crime and its consequences on persons and property are materialonly to determine the penalty.

Hence the second information should be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy.

• Not infrequently bar examiners substantially base their questions from SC cases,Q&As/examples in textbooks/reviewers.

Fact pattern or thematic facts

The fact pattern is put in the question by the examiner himself. These are the clueswhich you look out for in order to unravel the applicable rule/precedent. The fact pattern is thekey which will unlock the answer to a bar exam question.

• The key to issue/rule spotting is to practice, practice, and practice. If you do you will see

fact patterns repeat themselves over and over and over again. Thus, issue spottingbecomes easier and easier.

Passive study alone is not adequate preparation for the bar.

• TECHNIQUE OF INTERLOCKING KEY CONCEPTS

The 4 paragraphs should fit or interlock logically and clearly by using interlocking orcommon key concepts or words. A common mistake of examinees is to use one key concept inthe second paragraph and another one in the third.

• Pedro filed an action for recovery of title over land against Dencio. Dencio filed an answerin which he raised the defense that he was the owner of the land. The trial rendered

judgment in favor of Pedro, which judgment became final and executory. Later Dencio,claiming that he was a builder in good faith, filed a complaint for recovery of necessaryexpenses over the land against Pedro. Pedro filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.Should the complaint be dismissed?

• Example of answer with no/weak interlock

Yes, the complaint should be dismissed.





of 10

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, a compulsory counterclaim not set up is barred.

Here the complaint arose out of the first case for recovery of title over land.

Hence the same is barred and thus the complaint should be dismissed.

• Reformatted using Technique of Interlocking Key Concepts.

Yes, the complaint should be dismissed.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, a compulsory counterclaim not set up is barred.

Here Dencio’s complaint for reimbursement of necessary expenses is a compulsorycounterclaim because it arose out of the first case for recovery of title and it was not set up in thefirst case.

Hence the same is barred and thus the complaint should be dismissed.

• Shotgun answers should be avoided. The SC has explicitly criticized the use of shotgun

answers by examinees. An actual, unedited example of a shotgun answer is shown below:

No. There was no proper joinder of causes of action.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, for a proper joinder of causes of action, thefollowing requisites must be complied with: (1) it must comply with the rules on joinder of parties;(2) must not be one under special civil action or action govern by special rules; (3) one of theaction must be within the jurisdiction of the RTC if there are different venues and (4) the claim is formoney, the aggregate value or totality rule shall apply.

In the present case, the causes of action which is collection of P300,000 in Manilaand recovery of title of real property in Iloilo City with assessed value of P60,000 does not complywith the requisites. Hence, there is no proper joinder of causes of action.

Note that the examinee did not cite what particular requirement in Section 5, Rule 2 of theRules of Court was not complied with. What the examinee should have done was to refer to theparticular requirement not met and strike out the other requirements which were complied with.

• WHEN APPLICATION PARAGRAPH IS UNNECESSARY

When there is no need to particularize the rule or the law since the facts of the problem area virtual restatement or echo of the relevant rule.

• Illustration

A criminal information is filed in court charging Anselmo with homicide. Anselmo filesa motion to quash the information on the ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted.Will the motion to dismiss be granted? Why or why not? (09 Bar Q16b)

No, the motion to quash will not be granted.





of 10

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, absence of a preliminary investigation is notamong the grounds of a motion to quash.

• ANSWER ONLY THE QUESTION. DO NOT VOLUNTEER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

• Remember that a complete explanation does not require that you volunteer information ordiscuss legal doctrines that are not necessary or pertinent to the solution to the problem.

(Instructions, 2013 Bar).• Illustration: Call is: Will the motion to quash be granted?

No, the motion to quash will not be granted.

The lack of preliminary investigation is not a ground for a motion to quash under theRules of Criminal Procedure. Preliminary investigation is only a statutory right and can be waived.[The accused should instead file a motion for reinvestigation within 5 days after he learns of thefiling in court of the case against him.] (S6 R112).

The bracketed portion should be deleted since it is not pertinent to the call of the essayquestion.

TOP THIRTEEN DEFECTS OF BAR EXAM ANSWERS

1. One-paragraph format (use of “because”).

2. Conclusory or ex-cathedra answers.

3. Weak or non-interlocking paragraphs.

4. Strong point of answer weakened by blocks or interruptions.

5. No citation clause.

6. Too committal citation clause.

7. Obiter Dictum.

8. Factual Answer.

9. Law not pertinent to conclusion/core issue.

10. Answer does not address or tackle core issue.

11. Citing the rationale for the rule rather than the rule itself.

12. Citing impertinent portions of the law and shotgun answers.

13. Failing to specify facts in 3rd paragraph.

-oOo-

Essay Tactics

Documents

Transcript of Essay Tactics