82073 iF LEGALLOGIC. Copyright Pbilipsines 205 ——- FRANC}S JUDINS N. EVANGELISTA v nsiongsirre.aauvo AIL Rights Feserved [No pat of his Book may be reproced in any fashion without permision from the authors. In adr fo trace unauthorized Feproductiv the authors have inchidea insgsicat errors Ahroxghowt this material ISBN 978-971-0115900-4 Bus Published in 205, Conn ok Supply ‘a Peis Baling. Quszon Aver, Qaezen Cy bie tte FOREWORD 1 veould be tie 1 stese the Imputtonce of Jog in the stuuly and procice of law. ter atl, 98 Sie Ealwand Coe hoe verter, “roo i the eo ea.” W is quite sping then hat fesal reasoning has received scant attention tea our egal ‘scoters and scholar, ‘The tools of legal loge ate indispensable fo ta student fn analyzing eases and problems axl in presenting thelr arguments fn aking the bay, examines age exhort to eesent their answers in «logical maniser In the practi of lta the administration of juste, the avecate and the dge wil soon realize that the persuasive power of tual and appellate arguments and of judicial decisions ts socked lit logeal ‘organization, In fine, legal logic is etc to success in tow scot in the bar examination, an i fegal practice. ‘The nuthous deserve stong commendation for hei work whlch should be requind reacting for law students md professors a5 well as forthe members ofthe bench and the bar ‘Lega eduention should place more emphasis onthe acquisition of egal shi and competencies rather than onthe te ‘memorization and regurgitation of legal res. The pulicaion of this book isa salient stp in his disecton Ally. MANUELR, RIGUERA ‘Montz Legal Education BortMESSAGE “Those who sil ellove that any legal wasoning shoul be gud by the principles of lage wl beni eam his tok. Widh lear nguage, “the boule esses ond itastates through actual Supine Court decisions what rakes any easoningin law valli inv or fallacious, We teaches la} reasoning shill in a sf for better thon “hat of some a schol Prof. RENATO 8. MANALOTO Lawyer and Feat, Dyer Pioy Una Pippin «Dion MESSAGE Fray + textbook on lyl logic that 6 spetically “signe foe Flip law stems. Wiis dear and enganze Presentation ofthe ceneepts and principles of il tage and use ‘of examples involeng actual tel cases i he country this werk ‘wit surely euke the study of legal reasoning, mow engoging, Prucuctive, and enjoyable fr Filipino ta sents, [Congratulations to the authors ofthis estbowk, Deals Joli Evangsinta and At, David Robert Aquino, fa job well one! What hey ave accomplished isan ingptation to anyone thinking of making Phiippine education more elevant and reaningfl or Filipino students. Dr. NAPOLEON M. MAAQUIAO, Jk Atacl Preset Paogay Deta Soe Usiesiy “Mone‘TABLE OF CONTENTS: FOREWORD, Atty Meet R Riguera Member Le eat Bo MESSAGES: Prof. Reno B, Mavatoto Layers Ect prt of Psp tf he ips Di 1 Napoleon M. Mabeguio, Je “sce Des of Py Det Sole Ua = me INTRODUCTION Chapter o Intl gic and Law om sal Res n 0° Argusnen sen Expression of Roos Recognining Argunents Components of Legal Reasoning vali gal Resoving, Chspter 2 Paaett Co pisinLegl Reaming Burden of Pro tence Relevance and Admissibility Testy of nesses Expert Testimony Examination Depenatencr ot Patents Chapters Daductive Rosoning i ane Deduction end Induction Sytem Types of Syllosisms Categories Spogicas Es Pa 4 2% a 26Quant of the Proicate Paris ofa Categonica Syogisms ules for Vaiity of Cateyorieal Sylogims Hype tial sytagions Conditional Sogiems Rules for Conditional Syllogisms Enthymemes Palys tlogimns chapters patie sso ie axe Inductive Generations [evatuatiagIneitive Generalizations Analogical Arguments Evaluating Antec Anguments Chapters Fetes io Lge Reason Formal and Informal Falls 8 ra @ @ ” Equivoeaton Amphiboly Enproper Accent Vicious Abstaction ‘Composition Divison Fallacies of trstesance Argumeren af Howinen Arguimontuo a serio Arqurenton of Becsten ati Princ Fallacies ofnsulicient Evidence ‘Angiomentr a Artin Argumentun at Vercunian Actident Hesty Generatiction Argnmenton a Iemositons Fokee Dilemma 100 a2 108 m0 9 am us 0 2Chapter Rules of Lega Reseving 125 INTRODUCTION Rates of Catlision 1s JSR DUC CN a ulesof Intexpretation and Constzucion 153 Rules ot 15 The ent ues ech by le 1m tar Sage toe Rules of Proceare awe cst of of cuts stn of as hh lf ee the mt theta About the Authors Most erature on the suet of legal lege eons from forvign jurists, The concapts, prinipies and mone Jmportenlly the examples given are cult fen experiences from legasystemy that ane not our an 2k as this situation that prompted us 10 undertahe this ‘humble workin order ta present ts de student oF Legal Lepic a itlly Filipino view oF the subject, “This work lise the Famdamvenl pins ingore "soning highlighting te concepts soe pincptes a plas seg attempts to present the stadent the rch dynamic flied in raffing lopial argument as ell understanding ite favs and itsstena. apprecioting the at of Mone importantly, this work works ts way around Someste Lae and ihustrates is saient point through the veo ‘uF ove jurispnsenes. While 1 sll ake our beainge on thehallowed grounds of egal loge from Western thaw, the ppliction and presentation Filipino, “Though Yeyal logic i considered a8 2 minor sublet, we besiew that the concepts, principles sr! disciptine embox ed in this very dynaiie oem would greatly -tengthen and sist the Mugen of Jaw in aas of legs) writing, debt and ingumenttion a8 wl a6 fn the Interpretation are eonsirtion As this will sotinunnsty be stork in progrse, this work doesnot purport fy bean estive exposton om tho sul Tims bru rather am attempt to help the student fra wih the eonodpts and principies ot May the dt tight of oti, en Ve tight of ae nd ot Sp of Grace the Authors ‘Geni Chapter 4 Introduction ve sti = asi Lia elton = has not fied me to any specie sevice Among te abit of ads eich singin 9, bates ood Sb amd ns on the ly oe is et lino ie ai went Fis ms ns, sane pou fr im Bate the echt Pal cng ed thet saris of mceaton is. dierent bined of ovation ot tag cated elation cll Bat Bian sequela poe Toco Brak Theda Logie and Law Logie Is the study ofthe principles al methods of goed reasoning, It isa science of seasoning which aims to detemine and lay down the eniteria of goon (earrec) reasoning ad Bad (ncocrect) reaming. tn fine with this purpose, It probes into the fundamental concepts of argument, inference, truth, fabily and yay, among others. [tis om this very purpose of undertaking this study here is practical value les ts by means of loge that We elaify our aleas, assess the acceptability ofthe claims andbelies we encountes, defend and justify our assertions dad Statements snd mulke cational and sound decisions [Although psychology ls aso infested in and studies reasoning it is primarily concemed with how people reason Tihs demands lonking for patterns of behaviour, speech oF earoligica activity hat take place ithe process of reasoning, Trgies an he other hac studios the principles of good retain, Is task does not merely desceibe how people weason hut to discover and make availble those ctetia Wat cn be tose to est segments fr correctness! Logic being the sience of correct and sound seasoning i intiapensobte inthe ft of ae. The etficieney of practicing llopends on the quality of legal reasoning. Legat reasoning toh we use wher we apply laws, rules, and regulations 10 ppnticular facts and casei what we use when We Snenpeet Constitutions and statutes, when we balance fundamental Friniples and polices andl wien see evaluat evidences, and Jae judgments to onder egal decisions By examining at evaluating the elements and struchres ‘of legal reosoning, our legal judgments ard decisions vil shit fiom mse -abjecive preference to objective rationale Such kind bf judgenens ad decisions cin beter serve the nue ff. Givoo the prime impartance of logical reasoning in the tow proctice, fos ection should inclace the understanding tn analyse fundamental prineiples and methogoiesies of ol reaaoning that will able the aw students to discriminate Intec god std bad patterns of legal argumentation, For a profesion that sees co much on sound reasoning 1 valid argumentation in order to jostify & cain, defend = Proposition, assess the strength of evidences and render a “Ring Ge 6 Cor Catan rons Lope 183) a Judlicious detson, tigal logic should be pled atthe center of ‘ur legal cursiculun, ‘Legal Reasoning Argument a an Expression of Reasoning “Legal eessoning ike any in of ensoning, 3 exprestod Ahvough arguments, anal is with arguments that ogi hiely foncstned Ths, i important i ths imtwkactry chapter ta discuss the hundamental notion of argument, ts base elements fand strctates, and sshat makes it elstine fom her verbal ‘ltesances and expressions. When people hear the word “aignamnt” they wally Unk of sonne kind of quarrel or dispute. tn Lai, however, at argument aim pu forward and defend with teasors. To be mone precise, an aeguntent a yup of statement in shih fone satement i claims! to be true on the bass of another stotement/s. The statement that 6 being chimed to be te fella the conclusion and the statement that serves a the has ‘oF support ofthe conclusion i called the premise Thus, when & Inveyer attempts to prove, jostfy of defend a particular elim hy connecting #40 one of more claims, he/she is making an aguanent, rom the above explanation, we can sco how valuable sepuimente ane for layers, Lawyers become more persuasive ancl convincing if they develop the bab of speaking in Seguments, that is, they do not fst make assertions or claims thot something is rue (however confident and certain they an of the uth of ther assertions), but support thelr assertions by providing justifration, reasons or premises for thei aims However if is aot eneugh that Tawyers formate arguments fo persige people, fr not all argument ae coeect ind ceptable, In Leys, arguments are cetogorized as eitherIogleal_or logical, valid or invalid, sound or unsound depending on the acceptability of the premises and. the ‘connection betwen the pomise and the conclusion. To beable to constricl write and present acceptable and. convincing arguments, avers must be shied in termining he tical soundness of agumens, ‘This 6 of determining the logic of arguments demands tho aby to analyze the stricture and eantent of agaments = what are the jt and problems Reig ied what the chil him of the argument, what are the bases and premises advanced 10 suppor the claim, and what ane the eacial esucaptions impli in ones reasoning, Thus, is dardamendal that ane cam identify in portieaae apumtenative passage the two hasie elemoats in am argument ~ the concusinn and the premsce To helps da this ask there are words or phrases hat Iyplally serve to indicat the premise or the comeleston of at argument. The presence of any of them efter though sot esys. signals that what follows is the premise of the Conclusion, Some of the cosnmoa conclaion indicators aze thorefore, sa, thes, hancs, te. while the premise inictors We ‘fle une ate because sine, for, asmuch as, te ‘On fist reading a passage ite often useful to nding or Fighligh such indiator words shen we rin aeres them, especially if the passage i long and complex. Doing 50 ales us| to the crucial retionships of suppart within the paseage and thas gives us “landmarks” to its argumentative sree ‘he evince poset by the prosecution es sbtained dough wietanping. However, israel {for any pera, not being adrian by al the parties to fy pride commision, 1 Jap ay ite oF cable 0 sorely erin, infer or cant sch communication. There, suoh evince wll be asbesir hsprtair jici ivetigoto, Noting the wont “eee” inthe fit sentence helps us locate the argument’s conclusion, “Such evidence wil not be admissible sn this particular judicial investigation.” Wasa helps 1s recognize that the fist two claims (sentences) are offered as ‘easons ar premises in suppor ofthat eonelusion, Abortion should wt be eyaiced cen i ves of raje ond inst Beans ti not moray pore do ae innocent dfosless chit set someone el” sit In this passage, the wont “esse” intaduces the premise ‘that supports he anguer's postion sgainstegalzing abortion, Aveo of caution, however, ust beaded. Some of the arguments We wll encounter captain no indicators, Sometines| ‘we are just supposed to understand that an argument i being presente, ‘MOMs campaign got rf sido end fei the prolifera of hese sso errs sas dun: he movement ofebilesensing hey af Analyzing the content ofthis passage, we can sce thatthe speakel Js asserting the truth of the Sint siatement and supporting it with the second statement So, we have here an argument whore the fist statement is the conciion and the sscond siatement serves a its premise although we cannot see ‘ny premise or contusion indicators in the passage. Recognizing Argments As discussed! in an earlier paragraph, an argument isa group of statement, but not al groups of seatemrnts ae Brguments. An argurvontalwayshas.a conclusion and 2 premise ‘Without one, x busch of were: fs not at argument. I on this basis that we can recagnize whe there isan arguement and hen |‘Bere & none. However, people ofen mistake argumen’s from passoges that seem to be arguments but are not. Thus, itis Iexperative to be skilled i distinguishing angements from none srgument, (One passage that is often mistaken with anjuments is cexplonation, An explanaion is an illempt. to show why Sometie, the cise, whean argument isan attempt to shove that somthing isthe ease." AlRhough an aegoment end a fxplonation are hat important fs legal easoning, the twa have to be distinguished because unlike arguments, explanations are rot meant to proven sey the Wath ofa particular clam. ube We ed company tee seated by te Srpreme Court frome fhe court fod itereut Inconsisncss the etuenoes probes fy the ny is tapos people from exprssing thsi is nsonstiational emus on Constitato tes he fram of speech. ‘On the surface, these ro passages look very much alike. Both give reasons, and hoth ise the indicator word because. However there san impartantdiference betice the tuo. The fist sentence is an explanation and the second sentence i. art agument ‘An explanation tis to show why something ls the cae. nour ist example, for instance, tis Lear that the speaker isnot ‘tying to prove the truth of the statemeat Hubert Webb end company were acquited by the Supreme Couvt 3 act that {snot contestable nor is a subject af controversy: Instead, the speaker is tying to explain why they were acquitted (or hone come they were acquitted), Of course, you can angus about + lun Gite al hil Tk: & Sets mdcten 0 ‘hater a given explanation i corrector not ut hat posticuar passage remtine a mere explaniaton which not meant © prove sy clan ‘ithough both arguments and explanations give reasons, the nature of these reasons cffers, In explanations, these asm fare stl the ates of factors that show how or why 8 thing fstne fo exist In arguments, they ane intended to. provide rounds to justify a aie, to show that i plausible or teu Thus, in the other enanspte shave about the lw prohibiting people from expressing their vias, the speaker 8 making at fngument because the second statement $6 intended € jastiy ‘why su aw is unconstetonal Typically, explanations ar given by cling causes of the cevent tobe explained. For example, the pidge porponed the bearing bestse the efersant fail to appear inthe court de to unstable health conditions ‘This a causa explanation the ane fo appear brought bout the postponement ofthe hearing ‘There np attempt £0 prove thal the judge indeed postponed the hearing, Such esumed asa fact, The later part of the passage offers Information that woud show how the fet came tbe Thus, to distingwth arguments from explanations, we reel ko asc a key question: fet the speaker’ intent to prove or {stoblish shat something fs the case ~ tht to provide reasons bor evidence for accepting a claim as rue ori Fis/he tet 4 cexplain shy something Is the ease that so offer an socount of ‘why sone event has occurred or why’ something isthe way itis? Teshe formes then the passage isan azgoment. Ifthe lates, then the passages an explanation Arguments should also be istinguished from unsupported opinions. Statements of belief oc opinion ae sfatemenis aut what a speaker of writer hagas to believeSuch statements can be true or false, sional of irational, but hwy are parts of arguments only if the speaker or writer claims that they follow fom, or support, ther claims. Here is an example of eres of unsupported belt or opinion Tage oth tie proposed Junie Jutior and Wile Act being discusad at present én 9 biome cofeonc cama oft Cogs, Republic et $348 ust anil, Te man age af vial abity mus owed rae 5 012 ‘This carat be considered an argument berause acy there sno premise for reason) given why fhe minionum age of Admissibility and Relevance Evidence is deemed adissibe its rlevant to the issue and mone impotent its not excluded by provision of law ot by tho Hoes of Court. Asta eelovance, such evidence must have seh @ zelation to the fat in tue 98 t0 induce Delite existence or nomesistence, Tvidence to. be belloved must prosred nat only fom the moult of» credible witness but mst "pon. Caan 662 SORA 61 OH} ockwe Goeras tos SRA 2042, Gen! Cu, SR 205 0] bbe credit in tet as tole the test of conformity with the “knowledge and common experience of mankind.®) ‘Testimony of Witnesses ‘Testimony is generally confined te personal knowledge; and throfore eludes hearsay: Ths, a witness ean Westy only ti those tats which e knows of is personal knowledge whit are derived fom his own perception, except as otherwise [provided under the asf Ctr Section 36, Rile 130 of the Reeised Rules om Evidence, states that 2 witness can testify only to ohose facts which he knows nf oF comes font his personal rowed that, whic fate derived from is pescoption. A witness, therefore, may not testi a to what he metely fed frm mers either Because the 895 told, or he read or heard the same. Such testimony is ‘considered hearsay and may nat be ceived as proof of he tah ‘of chat heh learned, This i knose a the bearsay rae. The law, however, provides for speci exceptions to the hearsay rule. One ofthe exceptions i the entries in offi records mace fn the performance of day by x public officer. In oder words ‘official erties ae clmssble in evidence regardless ol whether theotiear person who made them sas presented and tsi jincaur since these enites are considered prima facie evidence ‘ef the facts etal therein, Other mseugnized seasons for this fexception awe mecesily and tnistworthiness. The neces consists in the Sneonvenience an! slificully of reqiting the blfsia's stendanes so 9 witness fo festiy t ittumerable tiaesactons In the course of hie duty. This wail aso unduly hamper putlie business, The tstworthiness consists da the presamplion of ragularay of performance of official dy by & public foes > oe vi be Game, BS SCRA BOI Peo Ost, SORASHE ot