336443224-Legal-Logic
Page 7:
Legal logic is a Filipino application and presentation of Western thought.
Legal logic is a minor subject but has practical value in legal writing, debate, argumentation, interpretation, and construction of laws.
Man is unique in his ability to change his environment through cultural evolution.
Page 8:
Logic is the study of principles and methods of good reasoning.
Legal reasoning is expressed through arguments.
Arguments consist of premises and conclusions.
Legal reasoning is essential in the field of law and should be included in legal education.
Lawyers become more persuasive and convincing when they develop the habit of speaking in arguments.
Not all arguments are correct and acceptable, they can be categorized as logical or illogical, valid or invalid, sound or unsound.
Page 9:
Lawyers must be skilled in determining the logic and soundness of arguments.
The ability to analyze the structure and content of arguments is crucial.
Identifying the conclusion and premises of an argument is fundamental.
Indicator words can help identify the premise or conclusion of an argument.
Recognizing arguments is important as not all groups of statements are arguments.
Page 10:
Arguments are often mistaken for explanations
Passages that seem like arguments but are not
Explanations show why something is the case
Causes or factors that explain how or why something happened
Arguments provide grounds to justify a claim
Intended to prove that something is plausible or true
Examples of mistaken arguments:
Law prohibiting people from expressing their views
Speaker is making an argument to justify why the law is unconstitutional
Acquittal of Hubert Webb and company
Court found inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the prosecution
Explanations cite causes of the event to be explained
Example: Judge postponing the hearing due to defendant's unstable health condition
Key question to distinguish arguments from explanations:
Is the intent to prove something is the case or offer an account of why something happened?
Page 11:
Statements of belief or opinion are not arguments
No inference or conclusion is claimed to be true
Unsupported opinions are not part of arguments
Only if they follow from or support other claims
Example of unsupported belief or opinion:
Philippines adopting a parliamentary government means no more election of a President
Conditional statements are not arguments
No claim that one statement is true because of the other
Components of legal reasoning:
Issue: What is being argued?
Constructing arguments to respond to a particular issue
Issue is a matter of controversy or uncertainty
Point in dispute or up for discussion
Conditional statements have an if-then relationship
Antecedent (if-clause) and consequent (then-clause)
Relevance of premises depends on the issue being addressed
Answer to the issue reflects the conclusion of the argument
Page 12:
Issue is different from a topic of case or principle
Violence against conversation or argumentation
Plagiarism and internet libel are topics, not issues
RULE - What legal rules govern the issue?
Judges should be fully guided by the rules to render a sound decision
Rules have at least three parts: set of elements, result, and causal term
Some rules have exceptions that can defeat the result
Existing rule governing the issue should be specifically cited
The order of the respondent judge in granting the application for bail was questioned
Respondent judge misapplied some well-established legal doctrines in criminal law
Duties of a judge in determining the merit of an application for bail
Respondent judge disregarded certain pieces of evidence for the prosecution
Page 13:
FACT - What are the relevant facts to the cited rule?
Material facts fit the elements of the rule
Sound reasoning demands considering both sides' facts
Lower court's decision based on the judge's idea of justice and experience alone
Decision not deduced from facts, but based on personal values and background
Accused-appellant asserts that the decision is null and void
Does not conform to the requirement of Section 9, Article X of the 1973 Constitution
Page 14:
Plaintiff's vulnerability is known to the defendant
Defendant's act can be considered outrageous
Intent is not necessary to bring about emotional distress
Reckless disregard for causing emotional distress is sufficient
Defendant's refusal to inform plaintiff of the whereabouts of plaintiff's child can lead to liability for VAWC
Plaintiff's emotional experience must satisfy the fourth element
Intensity, duration, and physical manifestations of emotional experience must be considered
The lower court's decision failed to clearly state the facts and the law on which it is based
The respondent judge's tendency to generalize and form conclusions without detailing the facts is problematic
Testimony of accused appellant Escober was rejected without specifying contradictions or vital details
Page 15:
Analysis of the Gamido vs. CA case is important in determining if the CA and RTC committed the fallacy of argumentum ad elenchi
Gamido was accused and convicted of forging the signature of the President
The principal witness for the prosecution was the Director of the Malacanan Palace Records Office
Gamido challenged his conviction based on the witness's lack of firsthand knowledge
The CA and RTC committed the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoration elenchi by concluding that the signatures were forgeries based on the documents' format and grammar
The High Court held that the witness's familiarity with the signatures of previous presidents made him competent to testify
The conclusion is the ultimate end of a legal argument
The conclusion must be grounded on factual premises and logical reasoning
Truth and logic are the criteria for distinguishing correct from incorrect legal reasoning
Page 16:
The first process of legal reasoning deals with the question of truth
The premises provided in the argument must be true or acceptable
The second process of legal reasoning deals with the question of logic
The reasoning of the argument must be correct and logical
Determining the facts is a principal objective in any court case
The legal reasoning that prevails is grounded on truth or genuine facts
The connection between the premises and the conclusion must be logically coherent
Different forms of legal reasoning require different ways of judging the logical connection
Legal reasoning also involves determining which facts are to be accepted by the court
Coherence to credible sources of information and clarity of facts are important in accepting the truth of a premise or evidence
Page 17:
Burden of proof lies upon the one who asserts it
Denying a fact cannot produce proof of it
In civil cases, plaintiff has burden of proving material allegations of complaint
Defendant has burden of proving material allegations in answer
In administrative proceedings, burden of proof rests on complainant
In medical negligence cases, complainant has burden of proving breach of duty and causal connection to patient's death
Party alleging a fact has burden of proving it
Equipoise doctrine applies when evidence is evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side evidence preponderates
Page 18:
Burden of proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish claim or defense
Testimony of witnesses is generally confined to personal knowledge and excludes hearsay
Best evidence rule applies when content of document is subject of inquiry
Admissibility of evidence depends on relevance and whether it is excluded by law or rules
Official entries in records made in performance of duty by public officer are admissible
Expert testimony can be received if witness is considered an expert in a particular field
Page 19:
Expert testimony can be received in matters requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, or training
Published treatise or periodical on subject of history, law, science, or art can be admissible as evidence
Order of examination of a witness: direct examination, cross-examination, re-direct examination, re-cross-examination
Witness cannot be recalled after examination without leave of the court
Page 20:
Doctrine of Stare Decisis
Stare decisis is the doctrine that once a court has laid down a principle, it should be applied to all future cases with substantially the same facts.
It is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Precedents should be followed to maintain uniformity and certainty of the law.
Matters already decided cannot be subject to litigation again.
Impeachment of Witnesses
A witness may be impeached by contradictory evidence, evidence of bad reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity, or evidence of inconsistent statements.
The witness must be asked about the statements and given an opportunity to explain them.
The statements must be related to the witness and shown to them before any question is asked.
Dependence on Precedents
The doctrine of stare decisis is the bedrock of precedents.
Courts should not depart from settled precedents unless the circumstances of a particular case override the benefits derived from the doctrine.
Precedents should not be blindly followed, but should be subject to examination and justification.
Page 21:
Retroactive Application of Precedents
The doctrine of stare decisis was applied retroactively in the case of Santos v. CA and Republic vs. Molina.
The guidelines in these cases should be considered advisory rather than mandatory.
The Court of Appeals erred in giving retroactive application to the doctrine.
Case of Pesca vs. Pesca
Lorna Pesca filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Zosimo Pesca.
Lorna alleged that Zosimo showed signs of psychological incapacity and was emotionally immature, cruel, and violent.
The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage null and void, but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and upheld the doctrine of stare decisis.
Page 22:
Deductive Reasoning in Law
Burden of proof is the duty of the party alleging to prove their claim.
Evidence is the means used to prove or establish a fact in a judicial proceeding.
Evidence must be relevant and material to the issue at hand.
Witnesses and their testimonies undergo several examinations to ascertain their truthfulness and veracity.
Precedents and Continuity
Precedents refer to issues that have been settled by previous judicial decisions.
Precedents ensure stability and continuity in the judicial process.
Appellate courts employ deductive reasoning to determine if the correct rules of law and evidence were applied.
Inductive reasoning is used to establish facts through causal arguments, probability, or scientific methods.
Page 23:
Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Deductive arguments guarantee the truth of the conclusion based on the premises.
Neil's good study habits and consistent academic performance suggest he will not fail his Legal Logic class.
Inductive arguments provide good evidence but not an absolute guarantee for the truth of the conclusion.
Neil's past success in law school makes it very probable that he will not fail his Legal Logic class.
Examples of Deductive Reasoning
All misdemeanors are criminal offenses.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is a criminal offense.
If quartz scratches glass, then quartz is harder than glass.
Quartz scratches glass, therefore quartz is harder than glass.
Examples of Inductive Reasoning
The car can't start even though there is plenty of gasoline in the tank.
It is likely that the battery is already exhausted, causing the car not to start.
In the last five years, the passing rate in the bar exam has always been less than 25%.
So we can say that this year's successful bar examinees will probably not go beyond 25%.
Page 24:
Indicator Words for Inductive Arguments
Indicator words like "probably," "likely," and "plausible" suggest an inductive argument.
The conclusion of an inductive argument is likely or probable given the premises.
Indicator Words for Deductive Arguments
Indicator words like "necessarily follows that" indicate a deductive argument.
Deductive arguments move from general premises to particular conclusions.
Syllogisms
Syllogisms are three-line arguments consisting of two premises and a conclusion.
They are commonly used in legal reasoning.
A syllogism follows the principle that what is true of the universal is true of the particular.
Constructing syllogisms is important for law students and lawyers.
Page 25:
Constructing Valid Syllogisms
A valid deductive argument is one in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
Invalid deductive arguments have conclusions that do not necessarily follow from the premises.
Being able to construct valid syllogisms is a valuable skill in legal thinking.
Valid arguments provide a recognizable basis for evaluating the strength of an argument.
Examples of Valid Arguments
Insulators are not electric conductors.
Rubbers are insulators, therefore rubbers are not electric conductors.
The Supreme Court is granted judicial power.
Judicial power includes the power to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion.
Note: This summary includes all the main ideas and supporting details from the given transcript.
Page 26:
Invalid arguments can have true premises and a true conclusion
Example: All nuclear wars inflict more harm than good. Therefore, all nuclear wars are unjust.
Validity of an argument depends on the relationship between premises and conclusion
The truth of the premises or conclusion does not determine validity
The basic question is whether the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises
Invalid arguments can have false premises and a false conclusion but still be valid
Example: Mammals have lungs. Fish are mammals. Therefore, fish have lungs.
Validity of an argument is determined by whether the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises
The truth of the premises or conclusion is not the determining factor
Inductive arguments do not claim strict necessity between premises and conclusion
Inductive arguments are technically invalid
Other terms like "strong" and "weak" are used to appraise inductive arguments
Validity of an argument is not dependent on the truth of the premises or conclusion
Example: Argument C has false premises and a false conclusion but is still valid
Syllogisms are of two types: categorical and hypothetical
Categorical syllogism consists of categorical statements only
Hypothetical syllogism includes both categorical and hypothetical statements
Page 27:
Categorical statements directly assert something or state a fact without conditions
Subject is affirmed or denied by the predicate
Categorical syllogisms consist of categorical statements
Example: Jeremy is not an elected public official. Therefore, Jeremy is not a city councillor.
Hypothetical statements propose or provide a tentative explanation
Compound statements with at least two clauses connected by conjunctions, adverbs, etc.
Hypothetical syllogisms contain a hypothetical statement in the first premise
Example: If the country is in serious danger due to invasion or rebellion, the President can declare Martial Law.
Page 28:
Categorical statements have quality (affirmative or negative) and quantity (universal or particular)
Quality is determined by the presence of qualifiers like "no," "not," "none," and "never"
Quantity of the predicate is independent of the quantity of the subject term
Predicate of an affirmative statement is generally particular, but can be universal if subject and predicate are identical
Predicate of a negative statement is always universal
Quantity of a statement is determined by what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term
Universal when the whole extension is affirmed or denied, particular when only a part is affirmed or denied
Predicate of a negative statement is always universal
Predicate of an affirmative statement can be particular or universal
Parts of a categorical syllogism
A deductive argument consisting of three categorical statements
Three terms: subject, predicate, and middle term
Page 29:
Main Ideas:
Introduction to categorical syllogisms
Explanation of minor, major, and middle terms
Three kinds of statements in a categorical syllogism
Rules for the validity of categorical syllogisms
Supporting Details:
Categorical syllogisms have a minor term (S), major term (P), and middle term (M) (p. 29)
The middle term mediates between the minor and major terms (p. 29)
There are three kinds of statements in a categorical syllogism: minor premise, major premise, and conclusion (p. 29)
Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain two negative premises (p. 29)
Examples of valid and invalid syllogisms (p. 29)
Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal terms (p. 30)
Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at least once (p. 30)
Page 30:
Main Ideas:
Explanation of fallacy of exclusive premises and equivocation
Rule 2: Three pairs of univocal terms
Rule 3: Universal middle term
Examples of valid and invalid syllogisms
Supporting Details:
The fallacy of exclusive premises occurs when both premises are negative (p. 30)
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a term has different meanings in different occurrences (p. 30)
Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal terms (p. 30)
Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at least once (p. 30)
Examples of valid and invalid syllogisms (p. 30)
Page 31:
Main Ideas:
Rule 3: Universal middle term
Exception to Rule 3
Rule 4: Universal term in conclusion
Introduction to hypothetical syllogisms
Supporting Details:
Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at least once (p. 31)
Exception to Rule 3 when the middle term is particular in both premises but quantified differently (p. 31)
Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the premise must also be universal (p. 31)
Introduction to hypothetical syllogisms (p. 31)
Page 32:
Teenagers face a tremendous amount of peer pressure
Conditional syllogism is a syllogism with a conditional statement as the major premise
Conditional statement asserts that one member is true on condition that the other member is true
Conditional statement consists of an antecedent and a consequent
Truth of the consequent follows upon the fulfillment of the condition stated in the antecedent
Conditional statements can be expressed in if-then forms
The relationship between the antecedent and the consequent is important in conditional statements
Page 33:
There are two valid forms of conditional syllogisms: modus ponens and modus tollens
Modus ponens: when the minor premise affirms the antecedent, the conclusion must affirm the consequent
Modus tollens: when the minor premise denies the consequent, the conclusion must deny the antecedent
Conditional syllogism is invalid if the minor premise denies the antecedent
Examples of valid and invalid conditional syllogisms are given
Page 34:
The