(Pampo) : Legal Technique and Logic Reviewer Evangelista and Aquino Book
(Pampo) : Legal Technique and Logic Reviewer Evangelista and Aquino Book
CHAPTER 1. (PAMPO)
INTRODUCTION
Logic-is the study of the principles and methods of good reasoning.
-is the science of reasoning which aims to determine and lay down the criteria of
good (correct) and bad (incorrect) reasoning.
Reasoning as to:
PSYCHOLOGY LOGIC
Studies how people reason Studies the principle of good reasoning
Studies the patterns of behavior, speech It does not merely describe how people
or neurological activity reason but discover and make available
those criteria that can be used to test
arguments for correctness.
Ex. Ex.
A was acquitted by the Supreme Court Any law that prohibits people from
because the latter found inherent expressing their views is unconstitutional
inconsistencies in the provided evidence because our constitution guarantees
by the prosecution. freedom of speech.
Intention: to explain by offering an Intention: to prove by providing reasons
account of why some event has occurred. or evidences for accepting a claim as
true.
CHAPTER 2.(MENDOZA)
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN LEGAL REASONING
These concepts and principles are principally found under the:
a. Rules of Court- is an issuance of the High Court that defines and governs
the conduct of proceedings before all courts of the land.
b. Highlighted in numerous decisions of the Supreme Court.
CONCEPTS
Burden of Proof
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK
- It 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 civil case.
- Basic is the rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies upon him who
asserts it, not upon him who denies, since by the nature of things, he who
denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it.
- In civil cases: PLAINTIFF- has the burden of proving the material allegations
of the complainant which are denied by the answer, and the
DEFENDANT- has the burden of proving the material allegations in his
answer, which sets up new matter as a defense.
- In administrative proceedings: burden of proof rests on the COMPLAINANT.
- In medical negligence cases: COMPLAINANT has the burden on establishing
breach of duty on the part of the doctors or surgeons.
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, Section3, of the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure applies only when the content of such
document is the subject of the inquiry.
- Under the best evidence rule:
a. Original document- must be produced.
b. Photocopy- being a mere a secondary evidence, is not admissible unless
it is shown that the original is unavailable.
- Preponderance evidence is the weight, credit and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the
term: “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible
evidence.”
Expert Testimony
- Expert testimony refers to statements made by individuals who are
considered as experts in a particular field.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK
- Note that under the Rules of Court, the opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to
possess, may be received in evidence.
Examination
- The credibility given by trial courts to prosecution witnesses is an important
aspect of evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of its unique
opportunity to observe them, particularly their demeanor, conduct, and
attitude, during the direct and cross examination by the counsels.
- Please note that under the Rules of Court the order in which an individual
witness may be examined is as follows:
Dependence on Precedence
- “Stare decisis et non quieta movere”
- Stated differently, Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions
and disturb not what is settled. 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.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK
PESCA vs PESCA
- The High Court found no merit in the petition. The “doctrine of stare decisis,”
ordained in Article 8 of the Civil Code, expresses that judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
CHAPTER 3.(SILVA)
DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW
When appellate courts would determine whether the correct rules of law were applied to
the given facts or whether the rules of evident were properly applied in establishing the
facts, they employ DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
In cases 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.
In other words, we are reasoning deductively when our premises intend to guarantee
the truth of our conclusion while we reason inductively when our premises are
intended are intended to provide good (but not conclusive) evidence for the truth of our
conclusion.
Inductive arguments simply claim that their conclusions are likely or probable given
the premises offered. If the premises are true then the conclusion will very likely, or
probably, be true; but the truth of the premises cannot absolutely rule out the possibility
that the conclusion will be false. In other words, the conclusion might turn out to be false
even though the premises are true.
It is sometimes said that the basic difference between deduction and induction is that
deduction moves from general premises to particular conclusions, whereas induction
moves from particular premises to general conclusions.
A phrase such as “it necessarily follows that” almost always indicates that an arguments
is deductive. Here are some common deductive indicatorwords:
Certainly Definitely
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK
Valid argument
- is an argument in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true, no valid
argument can have all true premises and a false conclusion.
The basic question is: Does the conclusion follow necessarily from the premises?
It should be noted that the terms “valid” or “invalid” do not apply to inductive arguments
since inductive arguments, in the first place, do not claim that their conclusion follows
from the premises with strict necessity.
Types of Syllogism
The clauses are simple statements or statements that contain one subject and one
predicate.
Categorical Syllogisms
A statement that has the terms “no,” “not,” “none” and “never” is negative. In the
absence of such qualifiers, the statement is affirmative.
The statement is universal when what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term is
its whole extension; the statement is particular when what is being affirmed or denied
of the subject is just a part of its extension.
All No
Every None
Each
Some
Almost all
Most
Several
Few
Not all
Many
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK
However, in statements where the subject and the predicate are identical, the predicate
is universal.
3 Kinds:
a. Conditional syllogism is a syllogism in which the major premise is a conditional
statement.
Conditional Statement is a compound statement which asserts that one member (the
then clause) is true on condition that the other member (the if clause) is true.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK
b. Disjunctive syllogism
c. Conjunctive syllogism
2 VALID forms:
a. Modus ponens is when the minor premise affirms the antecedent, the conclusion
must affirm the consequent.
b. Modus Tollens is when the minor premise denies the consequent, the conclusion
must deny the antecedent.
2 INVALID forms:
a. Fallacy of denying the antecedent is when the minor premise denies the
antecedent.
b. Fallacy of affirming the consequent is when the minor premise affirms the
consequent.
CHAPTER 4. (LABADOR)
INDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW
Inductive Argument
Tries to show that their conclusions are plausible or is likely or probably true
arguments wherein the premises provide good but not conclusive evidence
gives conclusions more than what the premises are saying
used when there is no established law or clear statute which enables us to
fashion general rule
chiefly employed in determining the facts of the case
example
people vs. paguntalan
-there’s no direct evidence of conspiracy
-pieces of evidence collectively indicate that paguntalan and his
companions
acted in concert
-direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy
Types:
inductive generalization
o argument that relies on characteristics of a sample population to make a
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK
probably
likely
chances are
one would expect that
it is plausible to suppose that
it is reasonable to assume that
CHAPTER 5. (TABONES)
FALLACIES IN LEGAL REASONING
What is a fallacy?
A fallacy is not a false belief but a mistake or error in thinking and reasoning. A passage
maybe composed of entirely true statements or beliefs but it is a fallacy if the kind of
thinking or reasoning used in that passage is illogical or erroneous.
For Judges and lawyers, they fallacy to describe something that is not supported by the
facts.
Fallacy, for logicians and in legal profession, it describe an error in reasoning rather that
a falsity in a statement or claim. Illogical and incorrect ways of reasoning.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
This can be found not only in advertisements and headline but also in other very
common forms of human discourse.
5. Composition – this fallacy consists in wrongly inferring that what holds true of
the individuals automatically holds true of the group made up of those individuals.
6. Division - this fallacy consists in wrongly assuming that what is true in general is
true in particular. This is the reverse of the fallacy of composition.
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE(ABREA)
1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Ignores the issue by focusing on certain personal characteristics of an
opponent.
This argument makes the opponent the issue.
It shifts attention from the argument to the arguer; instead of disproving
the substance of what is asserted, the argument attacks the person who
made the assertion.
TWO KINDS OF ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
A. ABUSIVE
attacks the argument based on the arguer’s reputation, personality
or some personal shortcoming.
This is very common in the courtrooms as well as in election
campaigns where people employ techniques such as name calling
and mudslinging to persuade others to their side.
Attempt to persuade people by banking on the psychological impact
of their arguments.
It is important to separate our evaluation of a person from our
evaluation of the merit of that person’s ideas or arguments.
The personality, character or background of the person should not
count when we assess the strength of his or her arguments.
B. CIRCUMSTANTIAL
Consist in defending one’s position by accusing his or her critic or
other people of doing the same thing.
Also called tu quoque which means “you’re another” or you yourself
do it.
Can sometimes be used to as an effective defense
Valid defense in matters of provocation
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK
3. Accident
- consist in applying a general rule to a particular case when circumstances
suggest that an exception to the rule should apply
- occurs when general rules (usually have their exceptions) are applied to
special circumstances
- application of general rule is inappropriate because of the situation’s
“accidents,” or exceptional facts
6. False Dilemma
- arises when the premise of an argument presents us with a choice between
two alternative and assumes that they are exhaustive (cover all the
possibilities or these are the only choices that we have) when in fact they are
not
- derives from the failure to distinguish contradictories (exclude any gradations
between extremes, no middle ground between a term and its negative) from
contraries (allow a number of gradation between their extremes, plenty of
middle ground between a term and its opposite)
- treating contraries as if they were contradictories
Contradictories (a term and its negative)
- one of the two extremes must be true and the other is false
Contraries (a term and its opposite)
- it is possible for both extremes to be false
CHAPTER 6.(VIVIAN)
RULES OF LEGAL REASONING
Rules of Collision
Provisions
Vis-à-vis Provisions
1. Two laws dealing with the same subject matter but with conflicting provisions
Judiciary to reconcile or harmonize the conflicting laws or uphold one over the
other
Basic Principle of Interpretation – Words must be given their literal meaning and
applied without attempted interpretation where the words of a statute are clear, plain
and free from ambiguity
3. Where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general on
which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former.
Particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must affect
only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of
the particular enactment
4. Where the instrument is susceptible of two interpretations, one (invalid and illegal)
and another (valid and legal)
The valid and legal interpretation should be adopted.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK
Laws
Vis-à-vis the Constitution
Laws
Vis-à-vis Laws
1. Where two statutes are of contrary tenor or of different dates but are of equal
theoretical application to a particular case
Effect must be given to the last in the order of position, the latter overriding the
earlier.
3. In case of amendatory laws whose repealing clauses are not clear or vague as to its
effect to its predecessor law.
The later law repeals the earlier one (Leges posteriors priorescontrariasabrogant)
General Laws
Vis-à-vis Special Laws
Laws
Vis-à-vis Ordinances
5. In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to
implement said law
The basic law prevails because said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the
terms and provisions of the basic law.
2. Rule: If the language of the law is clear, then there is no need for either interpretation nor
construction. (VerbaLegis or Word of the law). It means that the law is couched in simple
and understandable language that a normal person would understand
3. Rule: If the law admits of two or more interpretation, then we need to interpret the law. If
interpretation is not enough, then attempt to construe the meaning of the law.
5. In National Federation of Labor v Eisma, the Court held that the first and fundamental
duty of Courts is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it has
been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them.
6. Words should be read and considered in their natural, ordinary, commonly accepted and
most obvious signification, according to good and approved usage and without resorting
to forced and subtle construction.
8. Plain Meaning Rule = which assumes that the intent of the parties to an
instrument/contract is embodied in the writing itself, and when the words are clear and
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK
unambiguous the intent is to be discovered only from the express language of the
agreement.
RULES OF JUDGEMENT
1. Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law. Hence, only the Supreme Court and all other lower courts have the
power to construe and interpret the law.
3. Article 9, Civil Code : No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the
silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws
4. Rule: If legislative intent is not expressed in some appropriate manner, the courts cannot
by interpretation speculate as to an intent and supply a meaning not found in the
phraseology of the law. In other words, the court cannot assure some purpose in no way
expressed and construe the statute to accomplish supposed intention.
5. Rules of Procedure = refers to the process of how a litigant would protect his right
through the intervention of the court or any other administrative body
6. Administrative rules of procedure are generally given a liberal construction. The intention
is to resolve disputes brought before such bodies in the most expeditious and
inexpensive manner possible.
7. In administrative rules, if the internal rules are silent on a particular procedure of justice,
it can usually be remedied by the provision that allows suppletory application of the
Rules of Court