eSCRA The Supreme Cour Reports Annotated Online Ri g the Bar in Legal Research LEGAL LOGIC FRANCIS JULIUS N. EVANGELISTA, Ph.D. DAVID ROBERT C. AQUINO, LL.B., CSE!LEGAL LOGIC Copyright Philippines 2015 FRA 1S N. EVANGELISTA, DXOBERT C. AQUINO All Rights Reserved 1500 No part ofthis book may be reproduced in any fashion without permission from the authors. In order to trace unauthorized reproduction, the authors have included insignificant errors throughout this material ISBN 978-971-011-900-4 Published in 2015 By Central Book Supply Inc. 927 Phoenix Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City FOREWORD It would be trite to stress the importance of logic in the study and practice of law. After all, as Sir Edward Coke has written, “reason is the life of law.” It is quite surprising then that legal reasoning has received scant attention from our legal ‘educators and scholars. ‘The tools of legal logic are indispensable for law students in analyzing cases and problems and in presenting their arguments. In taking the bar, examinees are exhorted to present their answers in a logical manner. In the practice of law and in the administration of justice, the advocate and the judge soon realize that the persuasive power of trial and appellate arguments and of judicial decisions is rooted in their logical organization. In fine, legal logic is critical to success in law school, in the bar examination, and in legal practice. The authors deserve strong commendation for their work which should be required reading for law students and professors as well as for the members of the bench and the bar. Legal education should place more emphasis on the acquisition of legal skills and competencies rather than on the rote ‘memorization and regurgitation of legal rules, The publication of this book is a salient step in this direction. ‘Atty. MANUEL R. RIGUERA ‘Member, Legal Education BoardMESSAGE ‘Those who still believe that any legal reasoning should be guided by the principles of logic will benefit from this book. With clear language, the book discusses and illustrates through actual Supreme Court decisions what ‘makes any reasoning in law invalid, or fallacious. It teaches legal reasoning skills in a style far better than that of some law schools. Prof. RENATO B. MANALOTO Lawyer and Faculty, Department of Philosophy University ofthe Philippines - Diliman MESSAGE Finally a textbook on legal logic that is specifically clear and organized ‘of examples involving actual legal cases in the country, this work will surely make the study of legal reasoning more engaging, productive, and enjoyable for Filipino law students. Congratulations to the authors of this textbook, Dr. Francis Julius Evangelista and Atty. David Robert Aquino, for a job well done! What they have accomplished is an inspiration to anyone thinking of making Philippine education more relevant and meaningful for Filipino students. Dr. NAPOLEON M. MABAQUIAO, JR. ‘Associate Professor of Philosophy De La Salle University - ManilaTABLE OF CONTENTS SS gee FOREWORD Atty. Manuel R. Riguera ‘Member, Legal Education Board MESSAGES: Prof. Renato B. Manaloto Lawyer and Faculty, Department of Philosophy University ofthe Philippines - Diliman Dr. Napoleon M. Mabaquiao, Jr. Associate Professor of Philosophy De La Salle University - Manila INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 on Introduction Logic and Law a Legal Reasoning oe Argument as an Expression of Reasoning 03 Recognizing Arguments Components of Legal Reasoning Evaluating Legal Reasoning Chapter 2 Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning Burden of Proof Evidence Relevance and Admissibility ‘Testimony of Witnesses Expert Testimony Examination Dependence on Precedents Chapter3 Desiuctive Reasoning in Law Deduction and Induction Syllogisms ‘Types of Syllogisms Categorical SyllogismsQuantity of the Predicate Parts of a Categorical Syllogisms Rules for Validity of Categorical Syllogisms Hypothetical Syllogisms Conditional Syllogisms Enthymemes Polysyllogisms Chapter 4 Inductive Reasoning in Law Inductive Generalizations Evaluating Inductive Generalizations Analogical Arguments Evaluating Analogical Arguments Chapters Fallacies in Legal Reasoning Formal and Informal Fallacies Falacies of Ambiguity 8 Equivocation Amphiboly Improper Accent Vicious Abstraction ‘Composition Division Fallacies of Irrelevance Argumentum ad Hominem Argumentum ad Misericordiam Argumentum ad Baculum Petitio Principii Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence Argumentum ad Amtiquuom Argumentiom ad Vericundiam Accident Hasty Generalization Argumentum ad Ignorantiam False Dilemma 2 92. 100 02 m0 10 im 14 18Chapter 6 Rules of Legal Reasoning 125 Rules of Collision 125 INTRODUCTION Rules of Interpretation and Construction 151 Rules of Judgment 165 Rules of Procedure 184 + Sir Peter Brian Medarar About the Authors InsideBack Cover ‘The Artof the Soluble Most literature on the subject of legal logic come from ly the examples given are culled from experiences from legal systems that are not our own. It was this situation that prompted us to undertake this humble work in order to present to the student of Legal Logic a Wholly Filipino view of the subject. ‘This work discusses the fundamental points soning highlighting the concepts and principle attempts to present to the student the rich dynamic involved in crafting a logical argument as well as appreciating the art of understanding its flaws and its strengths. work works its way around salient point through the use of take our bearings on thehallowed grounds of legal logic from Western thought, the application and presentation is Though legal logic is considered as a minor subject, we believe that the concepts, principles and di rery dynamic area would greatly stre writing, debate and argumentation as well as in the interpretation and construction of laws. As this will continuously be a work i does not purport to be an exhaustive exp but rather an attempt to help the student familiarize himself with the concepts and principles of legal logic. ish before ~The Authors Quezon City Chapter 1 Introduction “Nature - that is, biological evotution - has not fitted man to any specific environment... Among the scamper, fly, burrow, and sequence of cultural peaks.” = Jacob Bronowski The Ascent of Man Logic and Law jc is the study of the principles and methods of good reasoning. It is a science of reasoning which aims to determine and lay down the criteria of good (correct) reasoning and bad (incorrect) reasoning. In line with this purpose, it probes into the fundamental concepts of argument, inference, truth, falsity and vali among, others i i study where its practical value lies: wwe clarify our ideas, assess the accept ity of the claims andbeliefs we encounter, defend and justify our assertions and statements, and make rational and sound decisions. Although psychology is also interested in and studies reasoning, it is primarily concerned with how people reason. ‘This demands looking for patterns of behaviour, speech, or neurological activity that take place in the process of reasoning. Logic, on the other hand, studies the principles of good Its task does not merely describe how people reason cover and make available those criteria that can be arguments for correctness. Logic, being the science of correct and sound reasoning, is indispensable in the field of law. The efficiency of practicing law depends on the quality of legal reasoning. Legal reasoning is what we use when ly laws, rules, and regul particular facts and cases; it is what we use when we constitutions and statutes, when we balance fundamental principles and policies and when we evaluate evidences, and make judgments to render legal decisions. By examining and evaluating the elements and structures of legal reasoning, our legal judgments and decisions will shift from mere subjective preference to objective rationale, Such kind of judgments and decisions can better serve the rule of law. Given the prime importance of logical reasoning in the law practice, legal education should include the understanding and analysis of the fundamental principles and methodologies of legal reasoning that will enable the law students to discriminate between good and bad patterns of legal argumentation. For a profession that relies so much on sound reasoning and valid argumentation in order to justify a claim, defend a proposition, assess the strength of evidences and render a * Irving M. Cop! & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic (" ed. 1984). 2 decision, legal logic should be placed at the center of ‘curriculum Logal Reasoning Argument as an Expression of Reasoning any kind of reasoning, is expressed is with arguments that logic is chiefly important in this introductory chapter to scuss the fundamental notion of argument, its basic elements and structures, and what makes it distinct from other verbal utterances and expressions, Legal reasoning, they usually When people hear the word “argument, however, an think of some kind of quarrel or dispute. In Lo; argument is a claim put forward and defended be more precise, an argument is a group of sta one statement is claimed to be true on the basis of another statement/s. The statement that is being claimed to be true is called the conclusion and the statement that serves as the basis or support of the conclusion is called the premise. Thus, when a lawyer attempts to prove, justify or defend a particular claim by connecting it to one or more claims, he/she is making an argument. From the above explanation, we can see how valuable arguments are for lawyers. Lawyers become more persuasive and convincing if they develop the habit of speaking in arguments, that is, they do not just make assertions or claims that something is true (however confident and certain they are of the truth of their assertions), but support their assertions by providing justification, reasons or premises for their claims. However, it is not enough that lawyers formulate arguments to persuade people, for not all arguments are correct and acceptable. In Logic, arguments are categorized as eitherlogical or illogical, valid or invalid, sound or unsound depending on the acceptability of the premises and the connection between the premise and the conclusion. To be able to construct, write and present acceptable and convincing arguments, lawyers must be skilled in determining the logic and soundness of arguments. This skill of determining the logic of arguments demands the ability to analyze the structure and content of arguments ~ what are the issues and problems being raised, what is the chief claim of the argument, what are the bases and premises premises. To help us do this task, there are words or phrases that typically serve to indicate the premise or the conclusion of an argument, The presence of any of them often, though not always, signals that wi therefore, so, thus, hence, often use are because, since, for, inasmuch as, ete. ‘On first reading a passage, itis often useful to underline or highlight such indicator words when we run across them, of support within the passage and "to its argumentative structure, Noticing the word “therefore” in the last sentence helps us ugument’s conclusion, “Such evidence will not be Abortion should not be legalized even in cases of not morally permissible to innocent, defenseless child due fo someone else’ In this passage, the word “because” introduces the premise that supports the arguer’s position against legalizing abortion. of caution, however, must be added. Some of the ‘we will encounter contain no indicators. Sometimes supposed to understand that an argument is being DA's campaign to get rid of sidewalk vendors rhe proliferation of these sidewoalk vendors slows jovement of vehicles causing heavy traffic. Analyzing the content of this passage, we can see that the serting the truth of the first statement and with the second statement. So, we have here an shere the first statement is the conclusion and the ‘second statement serves as its premise although we cannot see any premise or conclusion indicators in the passage. Recognizing Arguments As discussed in an earlier paragraph, an argument is a group of statements, but not all groups of statements are arguments, An argument always has a conclusion ané Without one, a bunch of words is not an argument. It is on this basis that we can recognize when there is an argument and when 5there is none, However, people often mistake arguments from passages that seem to be arguments but are not. Thus, it is imperative to be skilled in distinguishing arguments from non- arguments. ‘One passage that is often mistaken with arguments is explanation, An explanation is an attempt to show why something is the case, while an argument is an attempt to show that something is the case? Although an argument and an explanation are both important in legal reasoning, the two have to be distinguished because, unlike arguments, explanations are ‘not meant to prove or justify the truth of a particular claim. Hubert Webb and company were acquitted by the Supreme Court because the court found inherent inconsistencies in the evidences provided by the prosecution. guarantees the freedon On the surface, these two passages look very much alike, Both give reasons, and both use the indicator word because. ‘However, there is an important difference between the two. The first sentence is an explanation and the second sentence is an argument. ‘An explanation tries to sh In our first example, for instan lear that the speaker is not trying to prove the truth of wtement Hubert Webb and company were acquitted by the Supreme Court ~ it is a fact that is not contestable nor is a subject of controversy. Instead, the speaker is trying to explain why they were acquitted (or how come they were acquitted). Of course, you can argue about shy something is the case. Gregory Basham, etal, Crcal Thinking: A Student's Introduction (2° ec. 2008) 6 Ahother a given explanation is correct or not. But that particular 's and explanations give reasons, Inexplanations, these reasons ae ‘causes or factors that show how or why a thing. ean in arguments, they are intended to provide a claim, to show that it is plausible or true. th r example above about the law prohibiting peopl expressing their views, the speaker is making an farguument because the second statement is intended to justify Why such law is unconstitutional ‘Typically, explanations are given by citing causes of the ‘event to be explained. For example, the judge postponed the hwaring because the defendant failed to appear in the court due fo unstable health condition. Thi ‘a causal explanation: the failure to appear brought ‘about the postponement of the hearing. There is no attempt to pprove that the judge indeed postponed the hearing. Such is ‘assumed as a fact. The latter part of the passage offers information that would show how the fact came to be. ‘Thus, to distinguish arguments from explanations, we ‘If the former, then the passage is an argument. If the latter the passage isan explanation. Arguments should also be distinguished from unsupported opinions. Statements of belief or opinion are statements about what a speaker or writer happens to believe.Such statements can be true or false, rational or irrational, but they are parts of arguments only if the speaker or writer claims that they follow from, or support, other claims. Here is an example of a series of unsupported belief or opinion: This cannot be considered an argument because actually there is no premise (or reason) given why the minimum age of criminal liability be 12 rather than 15. No basis or evidence was given to show that RA 9344 is wrong. Arguments are also often confused with conditional ‘A conditional statement contains an_if-then is made up of two basic components: the first ‘component is called the antecedent (or the if-clause) and the second component is called the consequent (or the then-clause). Conditional statements are not arguments because there is no claim that one statement is true because of the other statement. Consider the following conditional statement: If the PI government, then we ines adopts a parliamentary I not elect a President anymore. Neither the first component (the Philippines adopts a parliamentary government) nor the other component (we will not elect a President anymore) is asserted to be true. ‘Thus, we basically have only one assertion in this sentence (thus, only one statement). What is only asserted is that the former component implies the latter (ie, if the former will happen, the latter will also happen). But no premise is asserted, ‘made, and no conclusion is claimed to be true. were is no argument here. But consider the following: I not elect a President anymore because the s adopted a parliamentary government. we do have an ted by the issue at hand. he premises depends on the ‘very issue the argument is addressing. And whatever answer we {give to this question constitutes our position on the issue (which is reflected in the concl Brooke Noo! Moore & Richard Parker, Critical Thinking (7 ed, 2005),important to add that an issue is different from a topic of conversation or argumentation. Plagiarism and internet libel are topics, not issues. ‘Second is the RULE - What legal rules govern the issue? the elements are present (and the term that determines whether the result is mandatory, prokibitory, discretionary, or declaratory.”* In addition, some rules have one or more exceptions that, if present would defeat the result, even if all the elements are present. An example of a rule would be that: violence against women and chi against a women who is his wi relationship, or with who he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which re: to result in physical, sexual, psychological or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. ‘The existing rule governing the issue should be lly cited. Even when a decision is based upon what is ", it is because there is a rule that says that the decision of many rules so an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon. The rule can also take the form of cases or principles that courts have already decided. The reasoning here usually consists of arguing that the case under discussion is similar to that prior ‘Richard K. Noumana Je, Legal Restoring and Legal Wing: Stucke, ‘sien. and Sy ("ee 2008)] 10 or principle. On the issue of violence against ren, the case of People vs. Lambid® or People vs. nthe part of the judges, they should be fully guided by order to render a sound decision. Otherwise, the I be questioned as in the following case: People vs. Cabral” Assailed before the High Court was the i of respondent judge in granting the ation for bail which was affirmed by the court. Petitioners allege and argue that despite strong evidence that corroborated the sworn statement of the victim, the respondent judge disregarded the same and granted bail. ished legal doctrines in criminal law. Was the order val In reiterating the rules outlining the duties of a judge in determining the merit of an application for bail, it observed that respondent judge did disregard certain pieces of evidence for the prosecution which should have been considered. This is a clear case of non sequitur where the order ‘of the respondent judge was not arrived at as a GAR. Nos. 133086-67, October 1, 2003, 412 SCRA-417, 431 "GRR, No. 141782, December 14, 2001, 372 SCRA.421, 430-431 TOR No. 131909 (1999),product of a logical process as prescribed by the Rules. The next essential component in legal reasoning is the FACT — What are the facts that are relevant tothe rule cited? There area lot of facts that make up the client's story. For the purpose of legal analysis, we look for "material" facts, These are the facts that fit the elements of the rule. The rule would be satisfied if the facts of the present case cover all the elements of the rule. For example, regarding the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IED) case, an ex-boyfriend calls an ex-girlfriend several times in the middle of the night to harass her and this causes her severe emotional distress. Sound reasoning demands that the facts to be considered should not be one-sided, Although certain facts can very well support and establish a particular legal claim (that the defendant is guilty of committing acts of violence against women and children), one must consider the facts to be presented by the defendant's counsel and be able to demonstrate that those facts fail to spare the defendant of the charges thrown at him. By putting into equation the facts that would possibly be presented by the other side and preparing to nail them down would give the legal counsel a greater chance of winning the case. In the succeeding case, the lower court used the bad man ‘model in which the bad man only cares for the consequences of the law, and what the courts will do to him. The RTC judge did not deduce his concl rom facts. His decision was based on his idea of justice conditioned by his values, background, and acquaintance with social forces. The judge appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case based on his experience alone and it is enough for his standard that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. People vs. Escobar’ Amadeo Abuyen alias Roberto Alorte, was rly a security guard of appellant Juan Escober Bee Seng Electrical Supply, a family jon owned by couple Vicente and Lina ua, Abuyen was relieved by Domingo Rocero for always absent and found sleeping while on ity. December 3, 1982, Rocero’s tour of duty was in the morning to 7:00 in the evening. He is post and that evening after he was relieved by appellant Juan Escober. After Rocero had, Chua went to his office at the Bee Seng Supply as he usually does after office urs, accompanied by his 13-year old son Irvin iffany after which the two children watched television while their father proceeded to the bathroom, Abuyen and his three companions rode a tricycle and proceeded to the Bee Seng Electrical and appellant Escober opened the door. Abuyen and his two other companions went inside and a gushot was fired. Vicente Chua saw his two children mortally wounded and observed that 5,000 pesos was missing from his drawer. Juan Escober, together with four unidentified persons was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide and found guilty thereof. Accused-appellant Escober asserts that said decision is mull and void for it does not conform to the requirement of Section 9, Article X of the 1973 Constitution and that it was rendered even before "GR. No, L-69566 (1988)all the stenographic notes of the proceedings had been transcribed. Is the assertion of Escober correct? “Every decision of a state the facts ed” and that the decision of the lower failed on this standard. “The inadequacy stems primarily from the respondent judge's tendency to ‘generalize and to form conclusions without detailing the Jacts from which such conclusions are deduced. Thus, he concluded that the material allegations of the Amended Information were the facts ing which of. rejected the testimony of accused because it was allegedly replete without pointing out what these cont or what ‘vital details’ Escober should credible witness." recalled as a Another important component is ANALYSIS - How applicable are the facts to the said rule? This is the part where our argumentation and illustration come out. This part is supposed to show the link between the rules and the facts we presented to establish what we are claiming in our argument. The concern here is whether the material facts truly fit the law. Again, looking at the issue whether the defendant is guilty of VAWC, we must ask whether the series of overt acts made by the accused manifested an intentional or reckless conduct as well as an outrageous conduct. Analysis requires taking into account the basis when one co ‘An isolated incident ‘outrageous act, but i wre is a pattern of conduct and the rability is known to the defendant, the act can be ageous. How about if there is no intent on the fendant to bring about emotional distress. A for the likelihood of causing emotional the whereabouts of the plaintiff's ough that defendant knew where the the defendant could be held liable for VAWC the perience satisfy this element? Analysis demands jandard to determine the degree of a person's distress be quantified by the intensity, duration and physical ns of this emotional experience. lowing case, the High Court's analysis of the case wer the CA and the RTC commited the Gamido vs. CA? Gamido was accused and convicted of forging the signature of the President of the Republic of the Philippines. The principal witness, for the prosecution was the Director of the Malacanan Palace Records Office. Gamido assailed his conviction based on the testimony of the witness ‘owing to the fact that the latter had never witnessed the President sign any document and therefore is not competent to testify regarding the same. He also argued that the Court of Appeals and the RTC the signatures in the from the documents’documents were not offered to prove their appearance and grammar. ‘The High Court noted that the witness, ‘owing to his long position as custodian of the records of Malacanan Palace, is very well familiar not only of the signature of the sitting president but the signatures of previous presidents he had the privilege of serving under. It also declared that under the Rules of Court, it is not required that the person identifying the handwriting of another must have seen the latter write the document or sign it, but witness has seen writing purporting to be the subject's upon which ithas acted or been charged. As to the charge of the CA and RTC committing argumentum ad ignoratio elenchi, the High Court held that there is no. merit in petitioner's claim that forgery could not be said to exist since the documents, because of their “unusual format, atrocious grammar, and misspelled words” could not have defrauded or deceived anyone, and that ‘moreover they lack apparent legal efficacy. That is not so. If the documents were fanciful or whimsical, as for example, a commission appointing petitioner mayor of a mythical kingdom, the forgery could simply be dismissed as a spoof, But as pointed out by the Sol because of the possibility that the less wary would be deceived, especially because that the documents, pertaining to it bear the Great Seal and were typed mnary which have the appearance of official f the Office of the Presicent. inal element of legal reasoning is the CONCLUSION tion of applying the rule to the given facts? onclusion is the ultimate end of a legal argument. It the rules and the analysis of the case amount to. lating Legal Reasoning \e different elements making up a legal argument, ia can we use to distinguish correct from incorrect ig? There are two general criteria: TRUTH and wed by looking at the two main ved in legal reasoning: (1) presentation of facts ‘The first process deals with the question Are the premises Jed in the argument true or acceptable? It is necessary for ‘gonelusion of a legal argument to be grounded on factual ls, for if the premises that are meant to establish the truth of Jogal claim (conclusion) is questionable, the conclusion itself Oftentimes disputes in the court are not about laws but it matters of fact.!° The opposing sides would present went, and sometimes contradictory, facts to support their 5, Was the person accused present in this place where the ‘was committed or was he in a different place as he is ling? Did the act of A cause the injury of B? Did the plaintiff Wiffer severe emotional distress? These questions, which deal ‘With the question which are the facts and which are not, are Wiiving M. Cop! & Cart Cohen, Introduction to Lone (‘what judges have to decide after weighing the pieces of evidence and arguments of both sides. Only after the facts have been determined can the legal rules (in the form of statutes, principles, administrative regulations or jurisprudence) be applied to those facts by the court, Therefore, determining what are the facts to be accepted is a principal ive when any case is tried in court. The legal reasoning that will prevail is that which is grounded on truth or genuine facts ‘The second process - inference - is mainly about the question of logic — Is the reasoning of the argument correct or logical? Does the conclusion of the argument logically follow from its premises? These questions point to the second criterion of a sound legal argument: LOGIC. The premises of the argument must not only be factual but the connection of the premises to the conclusion must be logically coherent, that is, the movement from the facts, to the analysis, and to the main claim must be valid. When can we say the conclusion follows from the premises? What basis can we use to judge their logical connection? There are different ways of addressing these questions as there are different forms of legal reasoning. We cannot answer these questions for that is what much of this book isall about. Although this work will largely be addressing the question of logic or legal reasoning question of truth since there is a lot in determining or establishing which facts are to be accepted by the court in rendering its decisions. In accepting the truth of aChapter 2 Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning “Ereedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man. John Locke (On Goverwment Bk. X, ch 4 chapter we shall discuss often used concepts and. ting an argument or position. These 's and principles are principally found under the Rules of Court and highlighted in numerous decisions of the Supreme Court, ‘We shall therefore discuss often used concepts such as burden of proof, evidence, admissibility, relevance, testimony and. examination of ordinary and expert witnesses and precedents, Burden of Proof Burden of proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of evidence in » asserts it, not upon him who denies, since by ss, he who denies a fact cannot produce any the specific rule as to the bruden of proof is burden of proving the material jendant has the burden of proving the material in his answer, which sets up new matter as a \e doctors or surgeons. It must be proven that such ity has a causal connection to the resulting death of and mere allegation is not evidence.!* According to doctrine, when the evidence of the parties are ly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence lerates, the decision should be against the party with the CGompany vs. Shin Yang Brokerage, 608 SCRA 521 12) |V8D Realty vs. Uniwide Sales, 684 SCRA.470 ‘Moniicalbo vs. Maraya, 648 SCRA 573 W.Goreno vs. CA, 682 SCRA 18 [2012] ‘W-Claraval vs, Lim, 654 SCRA 301 [2burden of proof.” The burden of proof is upon the party who alleges the truth of his claim or defense or any fact in issue." Evidence Evidence is the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a ‘matter of fact.” The “best evidence rule” as encapsulated in Rule 130, Section 3, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for the original. Moreover, production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court's discretion, whenever the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production Admissibility and Relevance Evidence is deemed admissible if tis relevant to the issue and more importantly, if itis not excluded by provision of law or by the Rules of Court. As to relevance, such evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must "7 Aba vs. De Guzman, 662 SCRA 36 OCA vs. Gutierrez, 68 SCRA 29 2012] "® Rule 128, Section 1, Rules of Court 2% Gaw vs. Chua, 551 SCRA 50s (2008) 2 be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind.2! ‘Testimony of Witnesses ‘Testimony is generally confined to personal knowledge; and therefore excludes hearsay. Thus, a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided under the Rules of Court. Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, states that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of or comes from his personal knowledge, that is, which are derived from his perception. A witness, therefore, may not testify as to what he merely learned from others either because he was told, or he read or heard the same. Such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has learned. This is known as the hearsay rule. The law, however, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One of the exceptions is the entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer. In other words, official entries are admissible in evidence regardless of whether the officer or person who macle them was presented and testified of the facts stated therein. Other recognized reasons for this exception are necessity and trustworthiness. The necessity in the inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the hamper public business. The trustworthiness con presumption of regularity of performance of official duty by a public officer? 2 People vs, De Guzman, 676 SCRA 347 [2012] 2 People vs. Ochoa, 856 SCRA 382 [2011]Expert Testimony Expert testimony refers to statements made by individuals who are considered as experts in a partic ‘under the Rules of Court, the opinion of a requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. Moreover, under the same Rule, a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a subject of history, law, science or art is as tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in his profession or calling as expert in the subject The more common situation wherein expert testimony is resorted to by the courts when a holographic willis contested. Examination Please note that under the Rules of Court the order in which an individual witness may be examined is as follows: a) Direct examination by the proponent - refers to the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue; b)Cross-examination ty the opponent - Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in ® Rule 130, Section 49, 2 Rule 130, Section 46 25 Rule 132, Section 4, Rules of Court ® Rule 132, Section 5, Rules of Court a the direct examination, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important facts bearing upon the issue?” ©) Re-direct examination by the proponent - After the cross-examination of the witness has been concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his answers given during the cross- examination. On redirect examination, questions on matters not dealt with during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion;28 and. )Re-cross-examination by the opponent - Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on such other ‘matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion Note, however, that after the examination of a witness by both sides has been concluded, the witness cannot be recalled ‘without leave of the court. The court will grant or withhold leave ints discretion, as the interests of justice may required.® 7 Rule 132, Section 6, Rules of Court 2 Rule 132, Section 7, Rules of Court 2 Rule 132, Section 8, Rules of Court % Rule 132, Section 9, Rules of CourtMoreover, a witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements his present testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense.2* Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has ‘made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if 0, allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they ‘must be shown to the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. Dependence on Precedents “Stare decisis et non quieta movere’® This is the bedrock of what we now refer to as precedents. It is a general rule that, when a point has been settled by a decision, it becomes a precedent which should be followed in subsequent cases before the same court. The rule is based wholly on policy, in the interest of uniformity and certainty of the law, ly departed from.* The doctrine of adherence to precedents or stare decisis was applied by the English courts and was later adopted by the United States.°> In our very own Rule 132, Section 11, Rules of Court Rule 132, Section 13, Rules of Cour > From seed precedents, there must be no depart. > Cail, Cyclopedic Law Dictionary [19221 ® Ting vs. VelezTng, $82 SCRA 694 (2008) 6 jurisdiction, the Civil Code echoes this by declaring that - judicial applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall ym part of the legal system of the Philippines.» The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.” ‘This is the doctrine that, when a court has once laid down jes are the same, Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled. Matters already decided on the merits cannot be subject of litigation again. But note that this rule does not elicit blind adherence to precedents."* It is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument.* Only upon showing that circumstances attendant in a particular case override the great benefits derived by our judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis, can the courts be justified in setting aside the same.” ‘The following case is a clear illustration of stare decisis: PESCA vs. PESCA* Petitioner Loma Pesca and respondent Zosimo Pesca were a married couple. Initially, the price 8 27 Lazatn ve, Desierto, 588 SCRA 265 [2009] 2 Chong vs. Secretary of Labor, 78 Phi. 248 2 Fermin v. People, 550 SCRA 12 (2008) + Lazatn vs, Desierto, 588 SCRA 25 [2009] 4° GR No, 196921 [2001] a1905 young couple did not live together as petitioner was, still a student in college and respondent, a seaman, had to leave the country on board an ocean-going vessel barely a month after the marriage. After establishing their residence, the couple could only stay together for 2 months in a year ~ when respondent was on vacation. But despite this they begot four children. Tt was only in 1988, when notice that respondent showed signs of “psychological incapacity” to perform his marital covenant, He was emotionally immature, an irresponsible husband, cruel and violent, and was also a habitual drinker. Petitioner and their children ‘was also treated with physical violence. Loran filed a petition to the Regional Trial Court for the declaration of nullity of their marriage invoking psychological incapacity. On November 15, 1995, the RTC declared the marriage null and void ab initio. This decision, however, was reversed by the Court of Appeals on the basis that Lorna failed to show proof that Zosimo was indeed suffering from psychological incapacity that would cause him to be incognitive of. the basic marital covenant. Appellant filed a Supreme Court contending that th out by Santos x. CA and Republic oft CA and Molina should have no retroactive application and on the assumption that the Molina ruling could be applied retroactively, the guidelines therein outlined should be taken to be merely advisory and not mandatory in nature. ‘The appellant further contends that the application of the Santos and Molina dicta should warrant only a remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings and not its dismissal. CA err in giving retroactive applici id out in Santos v. CA and Republic vs. ‘The High Court found no merit in the petition. The “doctrine of stare decisis,” ordained in form part of the legal system of the Philippines. The rule follows the settled legal maxim - “legis interpretado legis vim obtinet” — that the interpretation placed upon the written law by a ‘competent court has the force of law. The interpretation or construction placed by the courts establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent of the law. The latter as so interpreted and construed ‘would thus constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is enacted. is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds itself later overruled, and a different view is 9 1907adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of “lex prospicit, non respicit.” To reiterate - burden of proof is the duty of the party alleging to prove his claim. Evidence, on the other hand, is the ‘means sanctioned under the Rules of Court in order to prove or establish a fact in a judicial proceeding. In order for such evidence to be appreciated by the Court and admitted by the Court, it has to be relevant and material to the issue at hand, Evidence may either be through testimony of a witness or through the presentation of an object or document. As far as presentation of witnesses are concerned, the Rules require that they and their testimonies undergo several examinations - a direct, cross, re-direct and re-cross examinations - with the end in view to ascertaining its truthfulness and veracity. We also have what we call precedents which refer to issues that have been laid to rest by previous judicial decisions. This ensures not only the stability of the judicial process but also strengthens our justice system allowing for continuity. Chapter 3 Deductive Reasoning in Law 4 pinnacle ofthe Temple would alone have damned kim, and everything that happened after could bout have confirmed the diagnosis.” Deduction and Induction Logicians usually distinguish deductive from inductive reasoning. Both of these forms of reasoning play important roles in out legal system. When appellate courts, for instance, would determine whether the correct rules of law were applied to the given facts or whether the rules of evidence were properly applied in establishing the facts, they employ deductive when we want to determine the facts of the case and to establish them through causal arguments, probability or scientific methods, the reasoning chiefly relied upon is inductive How are these two patterns of reasoning different? Although all reasoning or arguments attempt to provide support ~ that is, evidence or reasons — for their conclusions, they differ greatly in the amount of support they intend to provide. Some arguments try to prove the truth of their conclusions beyond any a1