Argument – It provides reasons or evidence for accepting that a claim is true.

Explanation – It offers an account of why some event has occurred or why something
is the way it is.
Conditional Statement – Contains an if-then relationship, with two basic components;
(1) Antecedent or the IF-CLAUSE and, (2) consequent or the THEN-CLAUSE.

Legal Reasoning – follows a similar pattern in order to prove, defend or justify its
claim.
ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS
1. ISSUE – What is the issue being argued?
a. An issue is any matter of controversy or uncertainty;
b. An issue is a point in dispute, in doubt, in question.
c. Or simply up for discussion or consideration.
2. RULE – What legal rules govern the issue?
a. A set of elements, collectively called a test
b. A result that occurs when all the elements are present (and the test is
thus satisfied); and
c. A casual term that determines whether the result is mandatory,
prohibitory, discretionary, or declaratory.
d. Rules may take form of cases or principles that courts have already
decided. (stare decisis)
3. FACT – What are the facts that are relevant to the rule cited?
a. Material facts are facts that fit the elements of the rule.
b. Sound reasoning demands that the facts to be considered should not be
one-sided.
c. The rule would be satisfied if the facts of the present case cover all the
elements of the rule.
4. ANALYSIS – How applicable are the facts to the said rule?
a. This is where argumentation and illustration come out.
b. It shows the link between the rules and the facts presented to establish
what we are claiming in the argument.
c. Do the material facts truly fit the law?
d. Citing a standard to determine the degree of a person’s distress which
can be quantified by the intensity, duration and physical manifestations
of this emotional experience.
5. CONCLUSION – What is the implication of applying the rule to the given facts?
a. It is the ultimate end of a legal argument
b. It is what the facts, rules and the analysis of the case amount to.
EVALUATING LEGAL REASONING
There are two general criteria to distinguish correct from incorrect legal reasoning.
1. Truth – presentation of facts which pertains to the question of truth.
a. Are the premises in the argument true or acceptable?
b. The conclusion of a legal argument to be grounded on factual basis is
necessary.
c. If the premises are questionable, then the conclusion is questionable.
d. Only after the facts have been determined can the legal rules be applied.

2. Logic – inference (deriving a legal claim or judgement from the given laws and
facts) which pertains to the question of logic.
a. Is the reasoning of the argument correct or logical?
- In accepting the truth of a premise or evidence, it must be coherent to credible
sources of information as well to the general set of facts that are presented.
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN LEGAL REASONING
1. Burden of Proof
a. The duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
b. The rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies upon who asserts it,
not upon who denies it.
c. A party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is
not evidence.
d. Equipoise Doctrine – 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.
2. Evidence
a. The means sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
b. Best Evidence Rule encapsulated in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court (Original Document Rule – the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, writing recording, photograph, or other record, no evidence is
admissible other than the original document itself)
3. Admissibility and Relevance
a. Evidence is admissible if it is relevant to the issue and if it is not
excluded by provision of law or by the rules of court.
b. Relevance – Such evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
4. Testimony of Witness
a. Testimony – generally confined to personal knowledge; therefore excludes
hearsay.
b. Witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge which are derived from his own perception.
 c. Hearsay Rule – A witness may not testify at what he learned from others
either because he was told, or he read or heard the same.
i. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule
1. Entries in the official records made in the performance of
duty by a public officer. Official entries are admissible in
evidence.
2. Necessity – consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of
requiring the official’s attendance as a witness to testify to
innumerable transactions in the course of his duty.
3. Trustworthiness – consists in the presumption of regularity
of performance of official duty by a public officer.
5. Expert Testimony
a. Refers to statements made by individuals who are considered experts in
a particular field.
6. Examination
a. Direct Examination by the Proponent – refers to the examination-in-chief
of a witness by the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the
issue
b. 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.
c. Re-direct Examination by the Proponent – After the cross-examination,
witness may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or
supplement his answers.
d. Re-cross-Examination by the Opponent – After the re-direct examination,
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his
re-direct examination, also on such other matters as may be allowed by
the court in its discretion.
***IMPEACHEMENT OF A WITNESS**
A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called,
by contradictory evidence, by evidence…
7. Dependence on Precedents
a. Stare decisis et non quieta movere – stand by decided cases and do not
disturb established practices.
b. The rule on Dependence on Precedents is wholly on policy, in the interest
of uniformity and certainty of the law.
c. Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: Judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of
the legal system of the Philippines.