LEGALOGIC

GROUP 1
ANSAY, FUSILERO, PANTO JR., REYES, TATEL
OUTLINE

1. Introduction
A. Logic and Law
B. Legal Reasoning
C. Argument as an Expression of Reasoning
D. Recognizing Arguments
E. Components of Legal Reasoning
F. Evaluating Legal Reasoning
2. Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning
A. Burden of Proof
B. Evidence
C. Relevance and Admissibility
D. Testimony of Witnesses
E. Expert Testimony
F. Examination
G. Dependence on Precedents
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
A. LEGAL LOGIC AND LAW
Logic – is the study of the principles and methods of good reasoning. It is a science of
reasoning which aims to determine and lay down the criteria of good (correct) and
bad (incorrect) reasoning

Psychology v. Logic

Psychology is primarily concerned with how people reason, looks for patterns of
behavior, speech, or neurological activity that takes place in the process of reasoning.
Logic, focuses more and studies the principle of good reasoning. It does not merely
describe how people reason, but to discover and make available those criteria that can
be used to test arguments and correctness.
B. LEGAL REASONING

Legal Reasoning – is what we use when we apply laws, rules and regulations to particular
facts and cases. It is used in interpreting constitutions and statutes, when we balance
fundamental principles and policies and when we evaluate evidences, and make judgments
to render legal decisions. It is expressed through arguments.

Objective Rationale – shift from mere subjective preference by examining and evaluating
structures of legal reasoning, legal judgments and decisions.
Legal Reasoning – Basics

All legal reasoning follows one path. No legal argument can be accepted or rejected without
all of the following pieces
1. Issue - What specifically is being debated?
2. Rule - What legal rule governs this issue?
3. Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rule?
4. Analysis - Apply the rule to the facts.
5. Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts, what's the outcome?
C. ARGUMENT AS AN EXPRESSION
OF REASONING
Argument – in Logic, is a claim put forward and defended with reasons. It is a group of
statements in which one statement is claimed to be true on the basis of another statement/s.
If a lawyer is trying to prove, justify or defend a particular claim by connecting it one or
more claims, he is making an argument.
Two Basic Elements In An Argument
■ Conclusion
– Indicators: therefore, so, thus, hence
■ Premise
– Indicators: because, since, for, inasmuch as
D. RECOGNIZING ARGUMENTS
■ An argument is a group of statements however
not all groups of statements are arguments. An
argument always has a premise and a conclusion.
DISTINGUISHING ARGUMENTS
FROM NON-ARGUMENTS
EXPLANATION

■ It is an attempt to show why something is the case

while argument to show something is the case.
■ Hubert Webb and company were acquitted by the Supreme
Court because the court found inherent consistencies on the
evidences presented by the prosecution. (Explanation)
■ Any law that prohibits people from expressing their views is
unconstitutional because our Constitution guarantees the
freedom of speech. (Argument)
UNSUPPORTED OPINION

■ Statement of belief or opinion are statements about

what a speaker or writer happens to believe.
I agree with the implementation of TRAIN law. Those
earning more than P250 thousand should not be taxed.
CONDITIONAL STATEMENT

■ A conditional statement contains an if-then relationship. It is

made up of two components: the antecedent (if-clause) and the
consequent (then-clause).
■ If the Philippines adopts a parliamentary government,
then we will not elect a president anymore.
(Conditional Statement)
■ We will not elect a president anymore because the
Philippines adopted a Parliamentary government.
(Argument)
E. COMPONENTS OF LEGAL REASONING

1. ISSUE- It is any matter of controversy or uncertainty;

it is a point of dispute, in doubt or simply up for
discussion or consideration.

2. RULE-What legal rules govern the issue?

■ 3 parts of a Rule
– Test-set of elements
– Result that occurs when all elements are present
(and the test is then satisfied)
– Causal term-one that determines whether the result
is mandatory, prohibitory, discretionary or
declamatory.
■ Rules can also take form of cases or principles that the
courts have already decided. (Stare decisis)

3. FACTS- What are the facts relevant to the rule cited?

(Material Facts)
4. ANALYSIS- How applicable are the facts to the said
rule?

5. CONCLUSION-This is the ultimate end of a legal

argument
F. EVALUATING LEGAL
REASONING
1. Presentation of facts-pertains to the question of truth

2. Inference-deriving a legal claim or judgement from the

given law or facts. It is a question of logic
CHAPTER 2. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN
LEGAL REASONING
■ These concepts and principles are
principally found under the Rules of
Court and highlighted in numerous
decisions of the Supreme Court.
A. 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, which is
preponderance of evidence in civil case.
■ Lies upon him who asserts it, not upon him who denies, since by the
nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it.
■ In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the material
allegations of the complainant which are denied by the answer; and the
defendant has the burden of proving the material allegations in his
answer, which sets up new matter as a defense.
■ It is settled that the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and
mere allegation is not evidence.
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 granted against the party with the burden of
proof.
B. 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 of the Revised Rules of Civil

Procedure.
■ Applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the
inquiry.
■ Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually
executed or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence
is admissible.
C. 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.
■ As to relevance, such evidence must have such a relation to the
fact un issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.
■ Evidence must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of
conformity with the knowledge and common experience of
mankind.
D. TESTIMONY OF WITNESS
■ Generally confined to personal knowledge. 
■ A witness can only testify to those facts which he
knows of his personal knowledge which are
derived from his own perception. 
Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule (enumerated in Rule 130 of the revised Rules on evidence)

■ Dying declaration.
■ Declaration against interest.
■ Act or declaration about pedigree.
■ Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.
■ Common reputation.
■ Part of res gestae.
■ Entries in the course of business.
■ Entries in official records.
■ Commercial lists and the like.
■ Learned treatises.
■ Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding.
E. EXPERT TESTIMONY
■ Expert testimony refers to statements made by
individuals who are considered as experts in a
particular field. 
■ Note that under the Rules of Court, 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
F. EXAMINATION
■ Direct examination by a proponent
■ Cross-examination by the opponent
■ Re-direct examination by the proponent
■ Re-cross examination by the opponent
Witness impeachment- A witness may be
impeached by the party whom he was
called for by
■ Contradictory evidence
■ Evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty or
integrity is bad.
■ Evidence that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his testimony.
G. DEPENDENCE ON PRECEDENCE

■ Stare decisis et non quieta movere

■ Legis interpretado vim obtinet
Article 8 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines
“Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the
laws or the Constitution shall form part of the
legal system of the Philippines”
■ In the annulment case of PESCA vs PESCA, the court
used the cases of Santos vs CA and Molina vs CA on
deciding find no merit in the petition against the Court
of Appeals to not declare the marriage null and void.
THANK YOU!