Legal Technique and Logic

Legal Technique – instrumental skill from making to applying law  Linking warrants ground to believing in something
 Where is reasoning applicable?
SUMMARY OF LEGAL METHOD Republic of the Philippines
From act of legislative (law-making) to interpreting the law (judicial) (+powers of executive) First Judicial Region
Forming the law – 3 branches of Government + LGUs Regional Trial Court
 Considering best desirable option – best welfare Baguio
 Laws may have negative, deterrent attack (re: jaywalking) Branch
 Laws dictate how we act (re: Singapore is a fine city) Plaintiff Case no.
 Adapt or find way around it v. Defendant for Collection of Sum of Money
Re: taxi drivers, exact change
Statute 0 – Effect 0 Reasons – premises – major, middle, minor
Short Changing Law Reasonable – fair, just and sound
 TRAIN Donor’s tax – From 30% to 6%  Lawyers – always the higher degree of reasoning expected
Reasoning - Target? Benefit?
Atty. Tadeo: does not benefit Government, only the rich. Basic Block of Reasoning
 Proposition – elements that make up an argument, tied together by inferences
Model of Litigation/Transaction
o declarative sentences which may be true or not
Communicating Law  Inferences – tying clusters of propositions
Writing – brief but comprehensive, headings  Propositions and inferences are connected to each other.
Reading  Arguments built by propositions come up to conclusion.
Internal – Supreme Court decisions, facts Factum probans factum probandum
Same facts? If not, same ratio? Elements facts evidence
If it allows, if similar enough  Relevant, admissible
External – updated/notified/reversed Evidence – the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
Active Reading the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, Section 1, Rules of Court)
 applicable in judicial proceedings
Legal Logic  Only suppletory to administrative and quasi-judicial procedings
Logic – argument or idea that propose reason Purpose – to determine truth
 Thinking about thinking - respecting matters of facts – those you are trying to solve
 Mechanism how a particular argument came to be not all facts are up to dispute
 Aims to provide standards for evaluating quality legal argument re: marriage, lack of marriage
 Tool for legal arguments  Any proposition or fact considered by tribunal as data to form reason behind of fact
 Law to be applied, law applied to case in issue
Purpose  No accurate test of truth: only observation, experience, knowledge
1. Familiarizes rules Re: tone, particularity, eye contact. Too detailed?
 Deductive, inductive, analogy In courts: witnesses
 Detect errors in reasoning o knowledge, experience, study of men, presumption created by law
 Identify and avoid fallacies re: lie detector – admissible?
e.g. appeal to pity, no proof to contrary Probability or improbability of the facts – too detailed?
2. Instill mental discipline Judicial vs. Factual Truth
 Help thing clearly and enhance power of discovering truth Factual – moral truth, what really happened
3. Secure efficient application of legal principle Judicial – legal truth, what court believes happened
x irrelevant x no basis  relying on rules on evidence, ignoring emotions…
4. Anchors the law e.g. passport steps, birth certificate, picture taking, Webb v CA
 Keeps out untethered or undisciplined arguments re: x hearsay evidence
re: disparity - adversarial system
Reasoning – linking law to facts
 Legal Technique and Logic
The only way to hopefully determine the truth. As long as pursuant to prescribed
rules.
Tolerance level – cases do not win by righteousness of clients but by evidence in court.

Purpose of Evidence
Factum probans – inferences – factum prrobandum
evidence element
proposition argument
With help of legal reasoning, brought about by observation, experience, knowledge
application of law, presumption created by law

Rules of Evidence – to determine:

1. Relevance of facts – esxitence of right, duty, liability
2. Proof of facts – evidence given
3. Production of Truth – relevant facts

Policy of Courts in admission to evidence – liberal

 Cannot determine if strict
 In case of doubt, if not violative of any law, allowed
 If strict – evidence inadmissible, loss in appeal

Burden of Proof - the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. (Rule 131, Section
1, Rules of Court)
 Duty or obligation imposed on a person to establish an action incumbent…
 Burden of person making a claim
Civil cases – party or person making a claim, one who alleges affirmative fast
 Test: who will be successful if no evidence at all presented?
P (burden) v. D (successful) collection of sum of money
Criminal cases – Prosecution (burden) v. Accused (successful)
Labor cases – Employee v. Employer – illegal dismissal
 Law protects labor. In case of doubt, in favor of laborer.
Tax cases – P v. Rich Kid
Exemption – strictly against one claiming exemption

Proof beyond reasonable doubt — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an

acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (Rule 133, Section 2, Rules of Court)
 P v. Accused for homicide
If self defense, burden of proof not shifter, only burden of evidence.
Affirmative defense of self defense
Elements - admits crime
 Legal Technique and Logic
In proof beyond reasonable doubt, all essential elements need to be proved. Direct Circumstantial
Presumption of innocence is powerful because: evidence which proves a fact in dispute proof of facts from which, taken
1. Accused may sustain irreparable injury due to unjust conviction without the aid of any inference or collectively, the existence of the particular
2. Imbalance between parties: presumption fact in dispute may be inferred as a
o Prosecution, “People of the Philippines”, has a lot of resources, money to necessary or probable consequence
determine evidences VERSUS single counsel for the accused
Reasonable doubt – actual and substantial doubt on guilt of the accused, “fair Positive Negative
doubt” when a witness affirms that a fact did or did when a witness states that he did not see or
Consider: devotion of complainant to appear in disputes, material inconsistency not occur; establishes non/occurrence know the occurrence of a fact
Note: negative cannot prevail over positive
Preponderance of evidence – more convincing than evidence presented in opposition
 greater weight of evidence Testimonial Object
 superior weight of evidence involved testimony of a witness those addressed to the senses of the court
 equipoise doctrine - when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so Documentary
evenly balanced, the appreciation of such evidence calls for tilting of the scales in consist of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or
other modes of written expression offered as proof of their contents
favor of the accused
Note: If a paper is used to prove existence, it is an object. If the contents are used, it is
documentary.
Clear and convincing evidence – substantially more likely that it is not
 Best evidence rule: Original document must be produced (Section 3, Rule 130)
 more stringent standard that requires the allegation to be proven to the firm belief
or satisfaction of the trier of fact
 This standard requires that the evidence must be overwhelming enough to clearly Cumulative evidence Corroborative evidence
evidence of the same kind and character as evidence of a different kind and character
indicate the winning party.
that already given and tends to prove the tending to prove the same point
same proposition
Substantial Evidence – amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion (Section 5) Admissibility - relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules (Section
 in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies 3, Rule 138)
 more than a scintilla of evidence Admissibility = Relevant (useful for logic) + Competent (not disqualified by law)
RE: SC confused regarding evidence needed for disbarment Relevancy – evidence which has a 1relation to the fact in issue as 2to induce belief in its
Dismissal of a judge: proof beyond reasonable doubt existence or non-existence; evidence which tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
Suspension or disbarment: preponderance of evidence: probability or improbability of the fact in issue
Others: Substantial evidence  Factum probans should be directly proportional to factum probandum.
EVIDENCE Collateral Fact - matters other than facts in issue and which are offered as a basis merely
the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth for inference as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue
respecting a matter of fact.  not relevant
 tends to excite but also confuse
Factum Probans Factum Probandum o “accused is bad”
the evidentiary fact by which the factum the ultimate fact sought to be established; o Thief is a drug addict
probandum is to be established; material proposition to be established, hypothetical,
o victim is a GRO
evidencing the proposition, existent, and and that which one party affirms and the
 does not matter
offered for the consideration of the tribunal other denies
 does not sway the argument either way
 General rule: Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed
 Exception: when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or
improbability of the fact in issue. (Section 4, Rule 138)
Probative value – evidence which is sufficiently useful to prove something important in a
trial
 Legal Technique and Logic
CATEGORICAL 3. Any term distributed in conclusions must be distributed in the premises.
Conclusion must not assert more tan what has been asserted in the premises
Distribution Violation: Fallacy of illicit processes. – Illicit Major
– Illicit Minor
A Universal Affirmative
All judges are honest. 4. Avoid two negative premises (E & O)
All S is P. They assert mutual exclusion and cannot yield linkage.
E Universal Negative
No law students are shy.
No judges are honest.
Some Filipinos are not law students.
No S is P.
:. Some Filipinos…
I Particular Affirmative
Some judges are honest. Violation: Fallacy of Exclusive Premises
Some S is P.
5. If either premise is negative, conclusion must be negative.
O Particular Negative Violated: Fallacy of drawing affirmative conclusion from negative premise
Some judges are not honest.
Some S is not P. 6. From two universal premises, no particular conclusion may be drawn.
Violation: Existential fallacy
Rules of Formal Syllogism
1. Should only have three terms Existential importance: to assert the existence of objects of some kind.
Violation: Fallacy of four terms A and E has no existence of objects in the same kind.
I and O has.
2. Distributed middle term in at least one premise
Violation: Fallacy of undistributed term All lawyers in the Philippines are Filipinos.
No foreigners in Philippines may be lawyers.
All senators are able to read and write.
only senators not just senators Fallacies in Hypothetical Syllogism

No senators are foreigners 1. Hypothetical proposition

- no common denominator a. Antecedent: following “if”
- pertain to all senators, excluding all foreigner b. Consequent: following “then”
2. Hypothetical syllogism
Some senators are women 1st premise and conclusion- same antecedent
- cannot talk about all senators 2nd premise and conclusion – same consequent
- women no distributed, no assertion about entire women
Two forms: Modus Ponens
Some senators are not lawyers. - Categorical premise affirms antecedent
- nothing is said about all senators - ???
- lawyers distributed because when something is said to be excluded from a class, it refers to If A then B.
the entire class. A.
Therefore B.
Fallacy: All law students haver 4-year undergrad Fallacy of affirming consequent:
All college graduates have 4-year undergrad. If A then B.
:. All college graduate are law students. B.
Law students should be distributed. Therefore A.
 Legal Technique and Logic
Modus tollens: denies consequent :. His marriage shall not be declared null and void.
If A then B. Fallacy of denying antecedent
Not B.
Therefore not A. However there are some instances in the legal system where it is valid:
If there is proof of moral certainty, the accused must be found guilty.
Summary – minor premise must affirm antecedent or deny consequent There is no proof.
:. The accused must not be guilty.
If Brix is suffering from psychological incapacity, then his marriage to Amy shall be
declared null and void. Disjunctive Syllogism: either /or
- To determine the whole series of circumstances
Fallacy of affirming consequent - One premise takes form of disjunctive proposition
His marriage to Amy is declared null and void. - One denies???
:. Brix is suffering from psychological incapacity. Either A or B.
Not A.
Valid Therefore B.
His marriage to Amy is not null and void. Mood by which denying affirms:
:. He is not suffering from psychological incapacity. A is either B or C. Not B. Therefore C.
Contract either valid or invalid. Not valid. Threrefore invalid.
Fallacy
Brix is not suffering from psychological incapacity.
Affirming denies:
A is either B or C. A is B. Therefore not C.
Contract is either valid or invalid. Valid. Therefore, not invalid.

Fallacy of Non-exclusivity – one assumes that affirming disjunct???

Person either single or happy. Single. Not happy.
Accused either guilty of BP 22 or Estafa. BP 22. Not Estafa.
Can be guilty of both.

Fallacy of missing disjunct

- can arise in both modes
- incompleteness of a disjunctive proposition
- disjunct not enumerated

TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION Contradictories

- one is denial or negation of other
Immediate v. mediate - cannot both be true or false
Conclusion drawn conclusion drawn from - different quantity and quality
From one premise more than one premise - A-O – if A is false, O is true
as a syllogism - E-I – if E is false, I is true

A – Every person must act with justice and give everyone his due
O – some people may not act with justice nor give everyone his due
Retain S & P. Change quantity of S. Change quality of P.
Contraries
E True: No lawyer in the Philippines is foreigner. - Truth of one entails falsity of other
I False: Some lawyers in the Philippines are foreigner. - Cannot be both true but can both be false
 Legal Technique and Logic
- Only or universal premises A & E Classical logic – proposition undetermined ____ also underetmined.
- Same S, same P, different/change quality.
A All senators should be able to read and write. False Undetermined Undetermined False
E No senators are able to read and write. X X
Undetermined True True False
Subcontraries
- Same S, same P, different quality.
- Cannot both be true, but cannot both be false. Undetermined False
X
Some Filipino citizens are residents of the Philippines True Undetermined
Some Filipino citizens are not residents of the Philippines.
Always assume law is true.
E No lawyers are morally fit – False
CD – Some lawyers are morally fit – True FURTHER IMMEDIATE INFERENCES
C – All lawyers are morally fit – False
SA - ? Some lawyers are not morally fit Conversion
Interchanging S & P - still be true
Subalternation Allowed logically
- Same quality, different quantity
- E to O, A to I, Universal to particular Some contracts are in a public instrument.
- Truth of universal implied truth of particular Some public instruments are in a contract.
- Universal to particular – can both be true
- Universal aka superaltern Best for E & I.
- Particular aka subaltern
No suit can be filed by a person without locus standi.
A – All children born within 1935 Constitution have Filipino fathers. No person without locus standi may file a suit. (Converse)
E – Some children born within 1935 Constitution have Filipino fathers.
Converse of O proposition – generally not valid
No child born during 1935 Constitution who has Filipino father is a natural born.
Some children born during 1935 Constitution who has Filipino father is not natural born. Some oral contracts are not enforceable.
Some enforceable contract are not oral contracts.
Cannot be reversed to go above
Some people who received medal of valor is buried in the LNMB. Converse of A proposition
No people who received medal of valor is buried in the LNMB. All senators are able to read and write.
All able to read and write are senators.
Some chief justices are impeached.
All chief justices are impeached. To do this:
1. Convert to I (subaltern)
SP Qual Quan True False Some senators are able to read and write.
CD 2. Converse. (Conversion by limitation)
C Some who are able to read and write are senators.
SA
SC Obversion

Denying the opposite of what other affirms 2. Maintain quantity.

3. Replace predicate term with its complement.
1. change quality.
 Legal Technique and Logic
Complement – collection of all things that do not belong the original class 2. Replace predicate term with complement of its subject term.
Complement of S is not P. 3. Quality and quantity remains the same.
Complement of not S is not not S???
A: All S is P.
A: All S is P. Subject: All non P.
No S All non P is non S.
No S is non-P A: All non P is non S.
E: No S is not P
All senators are able to read and write. O: Some S is not P.
No senator. Some non-P.
No senator are unable to read and write. Some non-P is not non-s.

E: No S is P. Contraposition of E proposition – generally not valid. Only by limitation.

All S. E: No S is P.
A: All S is not P. All S is non-P. Obversion
Some S is non-P. Subaltern
No senators are foreigners. Some non-P is S. Conversion
All Senators are non-foreigners. Some non-P is not non-S. Obversion
A: All senators are Filipinos.
Contraposition of I proposition – not valid at all
I: Some S is P.
Some S is not P. [A] Dismissal based on abuse of confidence is justified dismissal.
O: Some S is not non-P.
[O] Some dismissal based on abuse of confidence are not justified dismissal.
Some Congressmen are district representatives.
Some Congressmen are not [E] No dismissal based on abuse of confidence is justified.
O: Some Congressmen are not non-district representatives.
X Justified dismissal were dismissal based on abuse of confidence.
O: Some S is not P.
Some s is All unjustified dismissal are those that are not based on abuse of confidence.
I: Some S is non-P. Non-P Non-S

Some lawyers are not morally fit. Subaltern

Some lawyers are Some dismissal based on abuse of confidence is justified dismissal
Some lawyers are not morally unfit.
I: Some lawyers are morally fit. Some justified dismissal are dismissal based on abuse of confidence
-conversion by limitation
Contraposition
Combination of conversion and obversion. No dismissal based on abuse of confidence is justified dismissal.
Obversion
1. Replace subject term with the complement term of its predicate term.
Legal Technique and Logic