CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

LOGIC and LAW

 Logic
- study of the principles and methods of good reasoning
- science of reasoning
- to determine and lay down the criteria of good (correct) reasoning and bad (incorrect)
reasoning
- probes into the fundamental concepts of argument, inference, truth, falsity, and validity

 Difference Between Psychology and Logic

 Psychology – primarily concerned with how people reason; demands looking for patterns of
behavior, speech, or neurological activity that take place in the process of reasoning
 Logic – to discover and make available those criteria that can be used to test arguments for
correctness

 Legal Reasoning
- apply laws, rules, and regulations to particular facts and cases
- interpret constitutions and statutes
- balance fundamental principles and policies
- evaluate evidence
- make judgments to render legal decisions

LEGAL REASONING
 Arguments
- with which logic is chiefly concerned
- claim put forward and defended with reasons
- a group of statements in which one statement is claimed to be true on the basis of another
statement/s
- categorized as logical or illogical, valid or invalid, sound or unsound

 Conclusion – statement being claimed to be true

Common indicators – therefore, so, thus, hence, etc.
Example:
The evidence presented by the prosecution was obtained through wiretapping. However,
it is unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication, to tap any wire or cable to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication. Therefore, such evidence will not be admissible in this particular judicial
investigation.

 Premise – statement that serves as the basis or support of the conclusion

Common indicators – because, since, for, inasmuch as, etc.
Example:
Abortion should not be legalized even in cases of rape and incest because it is not
morally permissible to kill an innocent, defenseless child due to someone else’s fault.

CAUTION! Not all arguments have indicators.

  Other Groups of Sentences Often Mistaken as Arguments
 Explanation – attempts to show why something is the case; argument attempts to show that
something is the case
Example:
Hubert Webb and company were acquitted by the Supreme Court because the court found
inherent inconsistencies in the evidences provided by the prosecution.

 Unsupported Opinions – a claim without basis/es or reason/s; argument is a claim with

basis/es or reason/s
Example:
I agree with the proposed Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act being discussed at
present in a bicameral conference committee of the Congress. Republic Act 9344 must be
amended. The minimum age of criminal liability must be lowered from 15 to 12.

 Conditional Statements – contains an if-then relationship, and antecedent (if) and

consequent (then)
Example:
If the Philippines adopts a parliamentary government, then we will not elect a President
anymore.

COMPONENTS OF LEGAL REASONING

 Issue (What is being argued)

- any matter of controversy or uncertainty
- pertains to a legal matter

 Rule (What legal rules govern the issue?)

- has three parts according to Richard Neumann: (1) a set of elements, collectively called a
test; (2) a result that occurs when all the elements are present (and the test is thus satisfied);
and (3) a causal term that determines whether the result is mandatory, prohibitory,
discretionary, or declaratory.
- should be specifically cited
- can take the form of cases or principles that courts have already decided

 Fact (What are the facts that are relevant to the rule cited?)
- “material” facts
- should not be one-sided

 Analysis (How applicable are the facts to the said rule?)

- to show the link between the rules and the facts presented to establish the claim in the
argument, whether the material facts truly fit the law

 Conclusion (What is the implication of applying the rule to the given facts)
- ultimate end of a legal argument
EVALUATING LEGAL REASONING
Two general criteria:
 Truth
- presentation of facts
- deals with the question “Are the premises provided in the argument true or acceptable?”
- Only after the facts have been determined can the legal rules be applied to those facts by the
court.

 Logic
- inference (deriving a claim or judgment from the given laws and facts)
- Is the reasoning of the argument correct or logical?

CHAPTER II
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN LEGAL REASONING

BURDEN OF PROOF
- duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the amount of
evidence required by law
- lies upon him who asserts it, not upon him who denies

 In civil cases
- plaintiff has the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint which are denied
by the answer
- defendant has the burden of proving the material allegations in his answer, which sets up new
matter as a defense

 In administrative proceedings
- the burden of proof that respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the
complainant

EVIDENCE
- the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact

 “Best evidence rule” encapsulated in Rule 130, Section 3, Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
- applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry

ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCE

- Evidence is deemed admissible if it is relevant to the issue and more importantly, if it is not
excluded by provision of law or by the Rules of Court.
- Evidence is relevant if it has a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence
or non-existence.
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES
- generally confined to personal knowledge; and therefore excludes hearsay

 Hearsay Rule
- 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.
- Exception: entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer

EXPERT TESTIMONY
- statements made by individuals who are considered as experts in a particular field

EXAMINATION
 Direct Examination by the Proponent
- examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the
issue

 Cross-Examination by the Opponent

- Upon termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-examined by the
adverse party as to any matters stated in 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 cross-examination, the witness may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain
or supplement his answers given during the cross-examination.

 Re-Cross-Examination by the Opponent

- After the re-direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on
matters stated in his re-direct examination.

NOTE! 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 in its discretion, as the
interests of justice may require.

DEPENDENCE OF PRECEDENTS

- 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, but is frequently departed from.
-

FIN