Legal Logic and

Techniques
ATTY. LULU B. ENERIO
LOGIC – 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) reasoning and bad (incorrect) reasoning.
The science of correct and sound reasoning. (Evangelista/Aquino, 2018)

Purpose of Logic:

1. It probes into the fundamental concepts of argument, inference,

truth, falsity and validity.

2. It is by means of logic that we clarify our ideas, assess the acceptability

of the claims and beliefs we encounter, defend and justify our assertions and
statements, and make rational and sound decisions.
LEGAL REASONING is a method used by lawyers and judges when applying laws,
rules and regulations to specific facts and cases.

ARGUMENT 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.

SYLLOGISM - any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two

premises.
TWO BASIC ELEMENTS:

1. Premise (major and minor)

2. Conclusion

ENTHYMEME - a logical argument that contains a conclusion but an implied

premise.

Recognizing Arguments:

A passage contains an argument if it purports to prove something; if it does not

do so, it does not contain an argument.
Premise is a statement that serves as the basis or support of the conclusion.
Proposition used as evidence in an argument.

Conclusion is a statement that is being claimed to be true. Logical result of the

relationship between the premises. Conclusions serve as the thesis of the argument.

Illustration:

Major premise No person below 18 years old can vote.

Minor premise
Mike is 16 years old.
Conclusion
Therefore, Mike cannot vote.
 Carrying unlicensed firearm is punishable by law.
Jim was caught carrying unlicensed firearm.
Therefore, Jim should be punished by law.

Indicators:

Premise – Because, Since, If, Provided that, For the reason that, Assuming that,
Due to the fact that…

Conclusion – Therefore, In conclusion, Hence, Thus, Accordingly, We may infer,

It follows that, We can conclude that…
 Argument Explanation

Reasons are intended to provide grounds to Reasons are usually the causes or factors that
justify a claim, to show that it is plausible or show how or why a thing came to exist.
true.

To provide reasons for accepting a claim as true. To offer an account of why some event has
occurred.

Sequence of statements intending to establish a Sequence of statements that purport to shed light
single statement. on some event that is usually accepted as a fact.
Components of legal reasoning:

ISSUE – What is being argued?

RULE – What legal rules govern the issue?
FACT – What are the facts relevant to the rule cited?
ANALYSIS – How applicable are the facts to the said rule?
CONCLUSION – What is the implication of applying the rule to the given facts?
David, an American businessman, secured parental consent for the employment of five minors to play certain
roles in two movies he was producing at home in Makati. They worked at odd hours of the day and night, but
always accompanied by parents or other adults. The producer paid the children talent fees at rates better than
adult wages. 

But a social worker, reported to OSWD that these children often missed going to school. They sometimes drank
wine, aside from being exposed to drugs. In some scenes, they were filmed naked or in revealing costumes. In
his defense, David contended all these were part of artistic freedom and cultural creativity. None of the parents
complained, said David. He also said they signed a contract containing a waiver of their right to file any
complaint in any office or tribunal concerning the working conditions of their children acting in the movies. 

Is the waiver valid and binding? Why or why not? 

ANSWER: The waiver is not valid. Under the law, the contracting parties may establish such stipulations,
clauses terms and conditions as may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy. In the case at bar, the parents' waiver to file a complaint concerning the
working conditions detrimental to the well-being of their children acting in the movies is clearly a violation of
the law. Thus, the waiver is invalid and not binding.
Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning

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)

evidence

The means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in a judicial

proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (Rule 128, section 1,
Rules of Court)
Quantum of evidence required

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.

Preponderance of evidence, in civil cases, means that the weight, credit and value of
the aggregate evidenced of one is superior to the other

Substantial evidence, in administrative cases, is that amount of relevant evidence

which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
doctrine of stare decisis

“From settled precedents, there must be no departure”

Decision taken by a higher court is binding on the lower court and at the same
time stand as a precedent to the lower court judgement, which cannot be
distorted by the lower court.

A ruling on a certain state of facts established in a final decision of the

Philippine Supreme Court has to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in
the land where the facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the
parties and property are the same.
NILO MACAYAN v. PEOPLE
GR No. 175842, March 18, 2015

Facts:

Annie Uy Jao (Jao) is the owner of Lanero Garments. She hired Macayan as a sample cutter and to
undertake materials purchasing for her garments business. Macayan filed a Complaint for illegal
dismissal against her.

Jao alleged that, immediately after the postponement of the February 12, 2001 conference in the
illegal dismissal case and in the presence of Angel, Macayan threatened to harm and/or kidnap the
members of her family. Fearing for her family's safety, Jao sought assistance from NBI.

NBI set up an entrapment operation against Macayan. At the location, Jao handed him an envelope
containing the marked bills. Macayan pulled the bills halfway out of the envelope, and the NBI
operatives accosted him. Macayan was charged with robbery.

Issue: whether or not Macayan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt has been established.
Ruling:

SC reversed the decision of CA and acquitted petitioner Nilo Macayan, Jr. of the charge of robbery.

1. Jao's claim that, immediately after the conference for the illegal dismissal case and in the presence of
“Angel”, Macayan threatened to harm and/or kidnap the members of her family, despite the records in the
same case showing that Jao never attended any of the 11 conferences that were set or conducted;

2. The prosecution's unjustified failure to present Angel as a witness and its sole reliance on Jao's testimony,
considering that it was Angel who can confirm if, indeed, Macayan threatened Jao's family after the
conference;

3. Jao's reliance on how she was addressed as "Madam" by the person speaking to her on the phone as basis
for concluding that it was Macayan who was supposedly calling and threatening her and her family;

Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code provides any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal
property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon
anything, shall be guilty of robbery.
The "bone of contention" centers on the elements of unlawful taking and of violence against or intimidation of
persons. Macayan's contention is that he neither intimidated nor threatened Jao, and that he could not have
unlawfully taken money from her on account of any act of intimidation and/or threats made by him.

The only way to eliminate any doubt in Jao's assertions would have been to find independent confirmation from
the other sources, as by way of unambiguous testimony of a competent and credible witness. However, no such
confirmation could be had as the prosecution's evidence on the most crucial elements of the crime was limited to
that testified on by Jao.

The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused on the strength of its own evidence. Its case must rise on
its own merits. The prosecution carries the burden of establishing the guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it cannot
merely rest on the relative likelihood of its claims.

In sum, the prosecution failed to establish the elements of unlawful taking and of violence against or intimidation
of a person. Reasonable doubt persists. As is settled in jurisprudence, where the basis of conviction is flawed,
this court must acquit an accused.

With the prosecution having failed to discharge its burden of establishing Macayan's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, this court is constrained, as is its bounden duty when reasonable doubt persists, to acquit him.
An argument consists of one or more statements, called premises, offered as
reason to believe that a further statement, called the conclusion, is true.

A statement is a sentence that declares something to be true or false. They are

thus sometimes called declarative sentences. 

examples:

Apple is a popular brand of phone in the US. 

God exists.
 Deductive Reasoning in Law
Deduction and Induction, distinguished

A deductive argument claims (explicitly or implicitly) that if the premises are all true, then
the conclusion must be true. It aims to establish their conclusions with complete certainty in
such a way that the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises all are true.

An inductive argument claims (explicitly or implicitly) that if the premises all are true, the
conclusion is thereby probably, or likely, true, although not absolutely guaranteed. It aims to
establish their conclusions with probability, or likelihood, but not with complete certainty.
Deductive reasoning, example:

All misdemeanors are criminal offenses;

Driving under the influence of alcohol is a misdemeanor;
Hence, driving under the influence of alcohol is a criminal offense.

Inductive reasoning, example:

Mark is a law student who has good study habits;

He is consistent with his readings and has never failed in any subject in law school;
Therefore, it is possible that Mark will pass the Bar.
 VALID vs INVALID ARGUMENTS

Mammals have lungs. Fraud is a criminal offense.

Fish are mammals. Mario committed a criminal offense.
Therefore, fish have lungs. Therefore, Mario committed fraud.

Senator Garcia is a bachelor. Chinese are Asians.

Thus, Senator Garcia is an unmarried Americans are not Chinese.
adult male. Therefore, Americans are not Asians.
SYLLOGISM

 Major and Minor premises

 Conclusion

Example:

The law prohibits a foreigner to acquire or own lands in the Philippines.

Mr. Jackson, an American, bought and signed a deed of sale of a property
located in Cebu.
Therefore, the deed of sale is null and void.
TYPES OF SYLLOGISMS

Categorical syllogism – states a fact without condition.

Ex.
Senators are elected public officials.

The Philippines adopts a presidential form of government.

Hypothetical syllogism – a compound statement which contains a proposed or tentative

explanation.

Ex.
If a party to a contract fails to perform its obligations in the contract, then there is a
breach of contract.
Properties of a categorical syllogism:

Quality
Affirmative – “Some crimes are punishable by imprisonment.”
Negative – “No one is above the law.”

Quantity
Universal – all, every, each, no, none

Ex. All law students must be holders of a bachelor’s degree.

No statutes that are in conflict with the Constitution are valid.

Particular – some, almost all, most, not all, many

Ex. Not all presidential candidates are eligible to run.

Rules for validity of Categorical Syllogism:

1. The syllogism must not contain two negative premises.

Ex.
No socialist country is capitalist.
The Philippines is not socialist.
Therefore, it is a capitalist country.

2. There must be three pairs of univocal terms.

Ex.
The Congress can create or abolish laws.
The law of supply and demand is a law.
Therefore, the Congress can abolish the law of supply and demand.
 Selling cigarettes to a person below 18 years of age is unlawful.
7/11 sold cigarettes to a student below 18 years of age.
Therefore, the store has violated the law.

3. The middle term must be universal at least once.

Ex.
No military actions that kill innocent civilians are just.
Some military actions in Afghanistan killed innocent civilians.
Therefore, some military actions in Afghanistan were not just.

4. If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the premise must also be universal.

Ex.
All acts that inflict more harm than good are unjust.
All terrorist acts inflict more harm than good.
Therefore, all terrorist acts are unjust.
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM

 conditional
 disjunctive
 conjunctive

Conditional syllogism – the major premise is a conditional statement.

Conditional statement – a compound statement which asserts that one member (“then”
clause) is true on the condition that the other member (“if” clause) is true.

Ex. “If it rains, then the ground will be wet.”

Note: “If” clause – antecedent

“then” clause – consequent
2 valid forms of conditional syllogism

modus ponens – when the minor premise affirms the antecedent, the conclusion must affirm the
consequent.

Ex.
If it rains, then the ground will be wet.
It rained.
Therefore, the ground is wet.

modus tollens – when the minor premise denies the consequent, the conclusion must deny the
antecedent.

Ex.
If it rains, then the ground will be wet.
The ground is not wet.
Therefore, it did not rain.
POLYSYLLOGISM

- a series of syllogisms in which the conclusion of one syllogism supplies a premise of the
next syllogism.

Ex.
Anything that contains information available for inspection by the public is a public document.
PDS contains information available for inspection by the public.
Therefore, PDS is a public document.

Mario falsified his PDS. PDS is a public document. Therefore, Mario falsified a public document.

Falsifying a public document is a criminal offense. Mario falsified a public document.

Therefore, Mario committed a criminal offense.

Anyone who commits a criminal offense should be dismissed from government service.
Mario committed a criminal offense. Therefore, Mario should be dismissed from government
service.
 Inductive Reasoning in Law

Inductive arguments are arguments in which the premises are

intended to provide support, but not conclusive evidence, for the
conclusion.

An argument is inductive when the premises make the conclusion

likely to be true.

Ex. It has been raining all day. So, it will probably rain again
tomorrow.
INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATIONS

An argument that relies on characteristics of a sample population to make a claim about the
population as a whole.

Example of general claims:

Most congressmen are against the legalization of divorce.

All law students are required to study taxation.

An inductive generalization uses evidence about a limited number of people or things of a

certain type to make a general claim about a larger group of people or things of that type.
ANALOGICAL ARGUMENTS

ANALOGY is a comparison of things based on similarities those things share.

An argument from analogy compares two things or two groups of things, notes many
relevant similarities between the two, and concludes that probably what is known to be
true of one will be true of the other.

Analogical arguments depend upon an analogy or a similarity between two or more

things.