REPORT ON LEGAL LOGIC (CHAPTERS 1 & 2)
Prepared by: Andaliza, Mangalus, Mazo, Noveno, Ote, Padlan, Pea & Sagun
LOGIC
What is logic?
Logic is the study of 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. It probes into
the fundamental concepts of argument, inference,
truth, falsity and validity, among others.
What is the importance of logic?
It is by means of logic that we clarify our ideas, assess
the acceptability of the claims and beliefs we
encounter, defend and justify our assertions and
statements, and make rational and sound decisions.
LEGAL REASONING
What is legal reasoning?
Legal reasoning is what we use when we apply laws,
rules, and regulations to particular facts and cases; it
is what we use when we interpret constitutions and
statutes, when we balance fundamental principles and
policies and when we evaluate evidences, and make
judgments to render legal decisions.
Why do we need to study legal logic?
Simply because the law profession 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 judicious decision.
ARGUMENT AS AN EXPRESSION OF REASONING
What is an argument in logic and its elements?
It is a group of statements in which one statement is
claimed to be true called conclusion, the first element,
and the statement that serves as the basis or support
of the conclusion called premise, the second element.
Without any element of premise or conclusion there is
no argument.
What are the categories of argument in logic?
a) Logical or illogical
b) Valid or Invalid
c) Sound or unsound
What are the structure and content of an argument?
a) What are the issues and problems being raised?
1
b) What is the chief claim of the argument?
c) What are the bases and premises advanced to support
the claim?
d) What are the crucial assumptions implicit in ones
reasoning?
What are common conclusion indicators?
Therefore, so, thus, hence
What are common premise indicators?
Because, since for, inasmuch as
What if there is no indicator?
There is an argument even without indicators as long
as there is an element of conclusion and premise.
RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
How to distinguish arguments from explanation?
Argument - Is it the speakers intent to prove or
establish that something is the case that is, to
provide reasons or evidence for accepting a claim as
true.
Example: Any law that prohibits people from
expressing their views is unconstitutional because our
constitution guarantees the freedom of speech
Explanation - Is it the speakers intent to explain why
something is the case that is, to offer an account of
why some event has occurred or why something is the
way it is?
Example: Hubert Webb and company were acquitted
by the Supreme Court because the court found
inherent inconsistencies in the evidences provided by
the prosecution.
What are not arguments?
Unsupported opinions (statements of belief or opinion
are statements about what a speaker or writer
happens to believe)
Conditional Statements. Example: If the Philippines
adopts a parliamentary government, then we will not
elect a President anymore.
There is an argument if example: We will not elect a
President anymore because the Philippines adopted a
parliamentary government.
 REPORT ON LEGAL LOGIC (CHAPTERS 1 & 2)
Prepared by: Andaliza, Mangalus, Mazo, Noveno, Ote, Padlan, Pea & Sagun
COMPONENTS OF LEGAL REASONING
What the components of Legal Reasoning?
The components of legal reasoning are facts, issue,
ruling, analysis, and conclusion.
What is the definition of all the components of legal
reasoning, as mentioned in the book? Can you also
give example in each component?
a) Fact - Also called as material facts. These are facts
that fit the elements of the rule or decision. The rule
would be satisfied if the facts of the present case cover
all the elements of the rule.
Example: Regarding the International Infliction of
Emotional Distress (IEED) 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.
b) Issue - Any matter of controversy or uncertainty. It is
a point in dispute, in doubt, in question, or simply up
for discussion or consideration. As such, it is always
formulated in an interrogative sentence.
Example: Is the accused guilty of online defamation?
Does the defendants conduct constitute an intentional
infliction of emotional harm?
c) Rule - These are statute, ordinance, or stare decisis
principle.
Example: Rule on Violence against women and
children - Occurred if a person acted against a women
who is his wife, former wife, or against a women
whom the person has or had a sexual of dating
relationship, or with a child, which result in physical,
sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic
abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault,
coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
d) Decision - It is an ultimate end of a legal argument.
It is what the facts, the rules, and the analysis of the
case amount to.
Example: Decision in the case of Gamido vs. CA (251
SCRA 101)
e) Analysis - This part is supposed to show the link
between the link between the rules and the facts we
presented to establish what we are claiming in our
argument.
Example: Looking at the issue whether the defendant
is guilty of VAWC, we ask whether the series of overt
acts made by the accused manifested an intentional or
2
reckless conduct as well as an outrageous conduct.
Analysis requires taking into account the basis when
one could say the act is reckless or outrageous.
What is the importance of knowing all of these
components?
These are essential components that must be present
in a legal argument for it to be successfully advanced.
EVALUATING LEGAL REASONING
What criteria can we use to distinguish correct from
incorrect logical reasoning?
There are two general criteria these are Truth and
Logic.
How can these general criteria be explained?
It can be explained by looking at the two main process
involved in legal reasoning. First, presentation of facts
which pertains to the question of truth. Second,
inference which pertains to the question of logic.
Can you further elaborate the processes?
a) Question of truth: pertains to the question, are the
premises provided in the argument true or acceptable?
If the premises that are meant to establish the truth of
the legal claim (conclusion) is not questionable, then
the conclusion is not questionable.
b) Question of logic: pertains to the question, is the
argument correct o logical? Does the conclusion of the
argument logically follow from its premises? The
premises of the argument must not only be factual but
the connection of the premises to the conclusion must
be logically coherent.
What is logically coherent?
The movement from the facts, to the analysis, and to
the main claim must be valid.
BURDEN OF PROOF
What is Burden of Proof?
The duty of any party to present evidence to establish
his claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law.
 REPORT ON LEGAL LOGIC (CHAPTERS 1 & 2)
Prepared by: Andaliza, Mangalus, Mazo, Noveno, Ote, Padlan, Pea & Sagun
Who carries the Burden of Proof?
The rule is that the burden of proof lies upon him who
asserts it not upon who denies it since he who denies
it cannot produce any proof of it.
a) In civil cases, the burden of proof is that the
plaintiff has the burden of proving the allegations
of the complaint which are denied by the answer;
and the defendant has the burden of proving the
allegation in his answer which sets up as a matter
as a defense.
b) In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof
that respondent committed the acts companies of
rests upon the complaint.
c) In medical negligence cases, the complainant has
the burden of establish breach of duty in the part
of the doctors or surgeons.
The party that alleging a fact has the burden of
proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.
What is an Equipoise Rule?
When the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced
or there is doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates, the decision should be against the
party with the 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
What is Evidence?
The means sanctioned by the rules of court of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a matter of fact.
When does evidence become admissible?
The best evidence rule as encapsulated in Rule 130,
Sec. 3 of The Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,
Sec. 3. Admissibility of evidence - Evidence is
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules.
It applies only when the content of such document is
the subject of the inquiry.
a) Where the issue is only whether such document
was actually executed, or exists, or on the
circumstances relevant to or surrounding the
3
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply
and testimonial evidence is admissible.
b) Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise
admissible without need to account for original.
ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCE
When is evidence deemed admissible?
It is deemed admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and more importantly, when it is not excluded by the
provision of law or by the Rules of Court.
What is the characteristic of evidence as to
relevance?
It must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non existence.
For an evidence to be believed, must it proceed only
from the mouth of a credible witness?
No. It must proceed not only from the mouth of a
credible witness but must be credible in itself as to
hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and
common experience of mankind.
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES
What is the 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 own perception, except
as otherwise provided in the rules (Section 36, Rule
130 of Revised Rules on Evidence).
Hence, a witness 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.
Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule: (Sections 37-47, Rule
130)
 REPORT ON LEGAL LOGIC (CHAPTERS 1 & 2)
Prepared by: Andaliza, Mangalus, Mazo, Noveno, Ote, Padlan, Pea & Sagun
EXPERT TESTIMONY
What is Expert Testimony?
Expert Testimony refers to statements made by
individuals who are considered as experts in a
particular field.
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special
knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is
shown to possess, may be received in evidence
(Section 49, Rule 130).
A published treatise, periodical, or pamphlet on a
subject of history, law, science or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if:
a) the court takes judicial notice; or b) 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 (Section 46, Rule 130).
EXAMINATION
What is the order of examination of witnesses?
The order in which an individual witness may be
examined is as follows:
1) Direct examination by the proponent -
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue;
2) 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.
3) 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. Questions
on matters not dealt with during cross-examination,
may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
4) Re-cross-examintaion 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, and also on such other matters as may
be allowed by the court in its discretion. (Sections 4-8,
Rule 132)
4
Note, however, that after the examination of a witness
by the 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.
Can a witness be impeached?
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
other statements inconsistent with his present
testimony, but not by the 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.
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 so,
allowed to explain them. If the statements be in
writing they must be shown to the witness before any
questions is put to him concerning them.
DEPENDENCE ON PRECEDENTS
What is stare decisis?
It is the 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, but is
frequently departed from. In our very own jurisdiction,
the Civil Code echoes this by declaring that judicial
decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution shall form 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 a principle, and apply it to all future cases,
where facts are substantially the same, regardless of
whether the parties and properties the same. Follow
the past precedents and do not disturb what has been
settled. Matters already decided on the merits cannot
be subject to litigation again. But note that this rule
does not elicit blind adherence to precedents.
 REPORT ON LEGAL LOGIC (CHAPTERS 1 & 2)
Prepared by: Andaliza, Mangalus, Mazo, Noveno, Ote, Padlan, Pea & Sagun

basic marital covenant, as so provided for in Article 68 of
It is based on the principle that once a question of law the Family Code; that the incapacity is grave, has preceded
has been examined and decided, it should be deemed the marriage and is incurable; that his incapacity to meet
settled and closed to further argument. Only upon his marital responsibility is because of a psychological, not
showing that circumstances attendant in a particular physical illness; that the root cause of the incapacity has
case override the great benefits derived by our judicial been identified medically or clinically, and has been proven
system from the doctrine of stare decisis, can the by an expert; and that the incapacity is permanent and
courts be justified in setting aside the same. incurable in nature.

Discuss the case of Pesca v. Pesca (356 SCRA 588)
and how the stare decisis was discussed in this
case.
FACTS: The petitioner and respondent were married and
had four children. Lorna filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity on the part of her husband. She alleged that he
is emotionally immature and irresponsible. He was cruel
and violent. He was a habitual drinker. Whenever she tells
him to stop or at least minimize his drinking, her husband
would hurt her. There was even a time when she was
chased by a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her in
the presence of their children. The children also suffered
physical violence. Petitioner and their children left the
home. Two months later, they returned upon the promise
of respondent to change. But he didnt. She was battered
again. Her husband was imprisoned for 11 days for slight
physical injuries. RTC declared their marriage null and void.
CA reversed RTCs ruling. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the guidelines for psychological incapacity in
the case of Republic vs CA & Molina should be taken in
consideration in deciding in this case.
The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies in
the plaintiff and any doubt should be resolved in favor of
the existence and continuation of the marriage and against
its dissolution and nullity.
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. 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. It is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds
itself later overruled, and a different view is 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.

HELD: Yes. In the Molina case, guidelines were laid down

by the SC before a case would fall under the category of
psychological incapacity to declare a marriage null and
void. This decision has force and effect of a law. These
guidelines are mandatory in nature. Petition denied.

Petitioner, in her plea to this Court, would have the

decision of the Court of Appeals reversed on the thesis that
the doctrine enunciated in Santos vs. Court of Appeals,
promulgated on 14 January 1995, as well as the guidelines
set out in Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina,
promulgated on 13 February 1997, 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. In any case,
petitioner argues, 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.

"Definitely the appellee has not established the

following: That the appellant showed signs of mental
incapacity as would cause him to be truly incognitive of the