Notes on Basic Legal Writing,

Reasoning, & Interpretation

22 July 2014

I. - SENTENCE CONSTRUCTION & STYLE:

On the Forms of Statement & Sentences:

1. A sentence is formed when there exists a subject and predicate relation.

e.g. (example) The cat is on the mat.
S P

1.1. The subject is the matter being addressed (i.e./like, the Cat).

1.2. The predicate provides description or attributes (characterization) to

the subject (i.e., the cat is being described to be on the mat).

1.3. Often, the predicate is related or linked to the subject by verbs.

e.g. The cat is on the mat.
S LV P

1.4. Nonetheless, either/or cannot exists to stand alone.

e.g. The cat OR
is on the mat.

1.5. However, action words or phrases may stand alone even if merely
constituted by verbs.
e.g. Arraign the accused. (imperative)
Not guilty. (declarative abbreviated form for I am
not guilty).

1.6. Most often, such action words considered as a sentence is identified

as either imperative (command) or exclamatory.

2. There are five (5) kinds of sentences: Declaratory, Interrogative,

Exclamatory, Imperative, and Expletive.

2.1. Exclamatory, expletive, and imperative sentences are more of being

mediums of expression (a state of feeling or emotion).

2.2. Expletive sentences particularly state a feeling of desire (wish or

hope), while imperative simply constitutes a directive or command.

2.3. Declaratory is, by form, a question, but is actually a suspended

claim, averment or assertion in nature, simply because instead of
1
 confirming a proposition, the same is transformed to an inquiry that
may eventually confirm or negate such proposition.

2.4. To transform interrogatory sentences to a claim or proposition, the

inquiry or doubt that suspends the assertion in an interrogatory
sentence must be given a definite stance.

2.5. It is said that a definite stance is given only when the question is
that true, false, correct, incorrect, right, or wrong? can already be
answered a propos the assertion.

2.6. Thus, declarative sentences are essentially statements of assertion,

averment, proposition, claim, contention, or conclusion.

2.7. An assertion, averment, claim, contention or conclusion is as such if

it is verifiable as true, false, correct, incorrect, right, or wrong.

2.8. In the same manner, a declarative sentence is as such if it contains

a statement, assertion, averment, contention, or claim that can be
ascribed true, false, correct, right, incorrect, or wrong values thereto.

2.9. The distinction is that a sentence is the tangible/material/visual

group of words while a statement/assertion is the complete idea or
conclusion being proposed to be verified.

2.10. Otherwise stated, such verification for true, false, correct, incorrect,
right or wrong values is a factor unique to declarative sentences that
is not found in the other forms of sentences. (i.e., you cannot aptly
ask the question is that true or false? to an interrogative sentence
simply because you can never verify/confirm truth or falsity
therefrom; the same is true with imperative, exclamatory or expletive
sentences since they merely express a state of feeling the
verification or verifiability of which is always dependent or subjective
to the individual making it, but not universally or generally adopted).

On the Form of a Paragraph:

3. Declarative sentences containing assertions form a paragraph.

3.1. A paragraph is created when the ideas, conclusions, or propositions

are categorized as intact and belonging together since they address
a common or single point or matter.

3.2. Usually, there exists a Thesis or leading statement in a paragraph

(Topic sentence).
3.2.1. This thesis statement is known or identified as the conclusion or
the proposition made to be verified as true, false, et al.
3.2.2. The rest of the statements in the paragraph provide support to
the thesis statement. These are known as premises.

3.3. E.g., PDAF is unconstitutional (conclusion).

1. The allowance or approval of PDAF is nowhere to be
found in the Constitution. (Premise no. 1).
2
 2. Only disbursements or appropriations expressly
mentioned in the Constitution are valid. (Premise 2).
3. PDAF is a disbursement or appropriation, albeit not
expressly mentioned in the constitution.

3.4. This conclusion-premises relation in a paragraph can be further

complexed or broken down into main thesis main premise (sub-
conclusion) main premise sub premise, and so on and so forth.
e.g., Pres. Aquino should be impeached. (main thesis)
1. he violated the Constitution (premise 1)
2. violation of the constitution, when culpable, is a ground
for impeachment (main premise 2 / sub-conclusion)
2.1. doing what is directly disallowed or prohibited in
the constitution is a form of culpable violation. (sub-
premise 1 / sub-sub-conclusion)
2.1.1. allocating funds not provided in the
appropriations law, as directed by the
constitution, is directly disallowed or
prohibited therein. (sub-sub-premise 1)

4. Considering the nature and organization of a paragraph, different, even if

related ideas or conclusions, must form separate paragraphs, and vice-
versa, statements or assertions must be grouped together to form a single
paragraph if they address a common or single matter or issue and can be
leaded by a main conclusion or thesis statement.

5. The common structure of the paragraph is the Pyramid style Tip of the
pyramid is the main thesis and the body down represents the premises.

5.1. In journalism and news writing, media people employ the inverted
pyramid form, in that all facts, circumstances and claims answering
the five (5) Ws (Who, What, Where, When, and How) are
encapsulated into a leading statement to provide an abbreviated
glimpse of the complete narration or body of the news.

5.2. In ordinary writing, it does not matter whether its the standard or
inverted pyramid structure that is used.
5.2.1. What matters is that all the 5 Ws or necessary and relevant
details must be contained in the paragraph, for brevity purposes.
5.2.2. This is what is known as punch method, short or brief blow that
delivers the purpose of attack (message/claim) just the same.

Writing A-B-C:

1. A = Accuracy
B = Brevity
C = Clarity

3
2. On Accuracy:

2.1. Practice logical and analytical reasoning.

2.2. To reason is to argue. To argue is to subject the truth or falsity of

a proposition/assertion for verification, tests, or confirmation. To
do so is effectively achieved if done in a sequential manner as if
it is a chain of arguments. Hence, to reason logically is to reason
in a sequential manner such that premises are directly linked
together up to the conclusion, creating a chain-argument.

2.3. To reason analytically is to verify the strength, factual sufficiency

and truth of each particular premise, such that if majority of the
premises are as such, the strength, factual sufficiency and truth
of the conclusion will follow.

2.4. To particularly verify is to dissect the premise radically or down to

its root cause, source or basis. To do so is to analyse the details
contained and referred, directly or indirectly, in the premise.
Hence, to reason analytically is to verify the details contained in
an argument as strong, factually sufficient and true.

2.5. The basic form of reasoning is that discussed above: conclusion-

premises relation. The rule or requirements, however, are:
2.5.1. The premises must provide support to the truth of the
conclusion. Stated otherwise, the truth of the Conclusion
follows from the truth of the premises.
2.5.2. The premises must be factually true or verifiable. Stated
otherwise, sufficient evidence for the factual truth of the
premises must be made available and provided.
2.5.3. Rule # 1: Never accept the truth of any statement or
belief unless you are sure that you have sufficient or
adequate evidence or proof for it.
2.5.4. Rule # 2: Be sure you understand clearly. In case of
doubt, always satisfy the question for clarity by
asking What Does that Mean? or What do you Mean
by that?, or simply, explain and define.
2.5.5. Rule # 3: the ideal argument is one where the truth of the
conclusion necessarily follows from the truth of the
premises or, vice-versa, that the truth of the premises
necessarily infers the truth of the conclusion (e.g., where
there is smoke, there is fire; always necessarily
establishes the truth of either premise or conclusion
because smoke is CO (carbon monoxide) which is a
chemical by-product of fire).
However, almost all arguments not falling within the
realm of exact sciences (physics, astrophysics, and the
likes) or mathematics do not have this nature. Hence, said
arguments can only be valid, sound, and effective.
To be a valid, sound, and effective argument, the
rule is avoid fallacies or show that the truth of the
conclusion follows from the truth of the premises.
If the conclusion does not follow from the premises,
the basic/general form of fallacy (also known as error in
4
 reasoning or erroneous reasoning) is committed: non
sequitur (it does not follow).1

2.6. Kinds of reasoning are: Deductive (Formal) and Inductive

(Informal).
2.6.1. Reasoning is deductive if the truth of the conclusion
necessarily follows from the truth of the premises, from
which it can be said that the truth of the conclusion is
almost certain, if not indeed certain.
e.g., All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

No law is absolute.
The constitution is a law.
Therefore, the constitution is not absolute.

2.6.2. Reasoning is inductive if the truth of the conclusion may

not necessarily follow from the truth of the premises but is
borne out and implied just the same, merely providing
least or most probable truth to the conclusion.
e.g., PDAF is unconstitutional (conclusion).
1. The allowance or approval of PDAF is nowhere to
be found in the Constitution.
2. Only disbursements or appropriations expressly
mentioned in the Constitution are valid.
3. PDAF is a disbursement or appropriation, albeit not
expressly mentioned in the constitution.

(note: the truth of the conclusion cannot be made certain

because an important premise is missing: that PDAF is
explicitly/expressly mentioned AND prohibited in the
Constitution, or is directly declared unconstitutional.
Moreover, if what is done in good faith cannot
qualify an act as unlawful, a counter-premise showing
good faith will directly negate the truth of conclusion.
Such is the nature of inductive arguments.
Unfortunately, almost all arguments we use are
inductive, for deductive reasoning is commonly used in
mathematics and precise sciences as the error for
margin or variability is less, if not present).

3. On Brevity: (see no. 5, above)

4. On Clarity: (see Bar Exam Tips & Observation, below)

II. - BASIC REASONING:

1
extracted from Philosophical Analysis (Prof. Andresito E. Acuna), UP Diliman, QC
5
1. As discussed (on the form of paragraph and on writing A-B-C), an inductive
(informal) argument can only be valid, sound, and effective. It cannot have
the truth of its conclusion necessarily follow from the truth of its premises.

2. Thus, the strength of its true, false, correct, incorrect, right or wrong values
can only be approximated and graduated in the degrees of probability
from the least probable, probable, most probable, highly probable, and
morally certain (what is known as beyond reasonable doubt).

3. We never refer and use the value of `possibility in arguments simply

because anything is possible, stemming from the philosophical principle
formulated by the greek Philosopher Heraclitus: everything is in a constant
flux, thus, nothing is permanent except change.

4. Accordingly, an argument is valid if the truth of the conclusion can be

drawn from its premises, or the premises can establish the truth of the
conclusion. On the other hand, an argument is sound if the premises are
verifiable and can be established as factually true. Finally, an argument is
effective if it is a valid and sound argument. (Acuna)

5. Three (3) ways by which the validity and soundness of an argument can be
obtained are: (1) basic logical forms are employed (classic syllogism: if A,
then B. It is A or it is not A. Thus, it is B, or it is not B. BUT never the form,
it is not B. Therefore, it is A.; hypothetical syllogisms: If A, then B. If B,
then C. Thus, if A, then C.; and the likes); (2) strict observance of Rule No.
1 (never accept the truth of any belief or statement unless you are sure you
have sufficient or adequate evidence or proof for it); and finally (3) avoid
errors in reasoning (Fallacies).

6. To avoid errors in reasoning, one must be cognizant of existing fallacies:

6.1. NON-SEQUITUR / Fallacy of Relevance: this is the basic, general

form of a fallacy or error in reasoning. If the truth of the conclusion
does not follow from the truth of the premises, the argument is non-
sequitur. Often, the fault lies in the degree of relevance of the truth
each premises carry, such that if the degree is not of most or high
probability of relevant truth to be provided to the conclusion, then
the argument will fail, be invalid or ineffective.

6.2. Fallacy of affirming the consequent:

6.2.1. In logic, you can only affirm the antecedent (condition) by which
the consequent obtains. Thus, in the argument form, If A, then
B, the antecedent/condition is if A, and consequent is then B.
6
 6.2.2. Applying, If PDAF is allowed, then it is constitutional. Since we
can only affirm the antecedent, it can only be said that If PDAF
is allowed. Whichever antecedent is affirmed (A or not A), the
result or consequent will be then B or not B; OR then it is
constitutional or it is not constitutional.
6.2.3. The consequent cannot be affirmed because the consequent,
being a result, will just follow when the antecedent or condition
obtains. Thus, we cannot say that If A, then B. It is B. Therefore,
it is A; OR If PDAF is allowed, then it is constitutional. PDAF is
constitutional. Therefore, PDAF is allowed.
6.2.4. From this, we can easily perceive that the conclusion (PDAF is
allowed) DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW from the premise
that PDAF is constitutional. Because it can be argued that when
an act is not expressly/impliedly prohibited in the constitution,
then it is not unconstitutional. Yet, it does not necessarily follow
that said act (PDAF) can be allowed. For to be generally allowed,
the same must not be deemed irregular, invalid, contrary to
morals and public policy, or to law.
6.2.5. For example, while pre-marital sex is not prohibited in the
constitution, it is certainly disallowed by religious morality.

6.3. Fallacy of False Dilemma:

6.3.1. False dilemma is committed when the argument propounds only
two options (in the form of an either/or) when in truth and in
fact, there exists other alternatives.
6.3.2. For example, either Roberto is guilty of homicide or murder;
which can easily be falsified when it is shown that Roberto is
guilty of neither but for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
(which is not the same as homicide per se).
6.3.3. The same is true when the reverse was committed, in that an
arguments proponent argues that a choice he state/argues exist
knowing the same to be not true, or simply that there is no such
factual or truthful choice other than what is plainly available.
6.3.4. The classic example is the situation where a boat where you,
your only parent (mother) and spouse were all aboard when the
same capsized in the middle of the river, knowing that you can
only save one life and you are to choose which life it will be
between your mother and spouse. The existing choices are
definite. It will be a fallacy if a third or other choice is created,
i.e., you will save ____ just because you presume or allegedly
know that the other also knows how to swim and is able just as
effectively to save his/her own life.

6.4. Special Pleading Fallacy:

6.4.1. Special pleading fallacy is akin to false dilemma. Oftentimes,
false dilemma is committed when a proponent of an argument
specially pleads his argument, by selecting only evidences,
premises, and other supporting arguments favourable to him,
while undermining or corrupting other necessary and/or essential
parts of the evidences, premises or arguments not favourable to
the argument of the said proponent.
6.4.2. For example, one of the accused defends himself by showing
that it was his co-accused who stabbed the victim that causes its
7
 death, and therefore, he alone should be made liable for the
crime, when, in truth and in fact, is that the crime was qualified to
murder because of the circumstance that said accused
participated either as an accomplice or co-principal when he led
the victim to the dark alley where his co-accused was waiting for
the opportunity to stab the said victim.
6.4.3. In other words, special pleading is committed when matters of
facts, evidences, proofs and arguments are pre-selected to be
favourably used in a certain proposition, when from the complete
and un-undermined same set of facts, evidences, proofs and
arguments the proponents arguments cannot withstand if the
whole set of the same is pleaded or considered in toto (in whole).

6.5. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and Slippery Slope:

6.5.1. Hasty generalization is committed when the argument warrants
and is made applicable to an ALL or ALMOST (Universal) claim
when the evidence only satisfies the requirement for a many,
several, or few quantities.
6.5.2. Hasty generalization springs from the fault in failing to verify,
assure, and assume that a certain proposition or claim identically
or similarly applies to Each and All based on a few samplings.
6.5.3. To avoid, requirements for good generalization must be done: (1)
Observe detailed QUANTIFICATION - do not say the proposition
or arguments applies to all if the evidence warrants only for
almost all; of do not say it warrants for almost all when what you
are merely sure of is it applies to many but have not ascertained
what is the total quantity of the application so that you can claim
application for almost all; do not say the proposition or argument
warrants for a majority when it merely applies to some; (2)
observed cases (sample) must be proper representative of the
whole; and (3) ascertain instances of conflicting cases (as one
counter-sample is all that is needed to refute a generalization).
6.5.4. For example: Land reclamation proved good in Singapore,
Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Australia.
Therefore, there is no good reason why the same cannot be
applied in the Philippines.
6.5.5. The fault of hasty generalization lies in making the assumption
and discarding the need to verify the truth and application to a
detailed quantity. In all respects, it must always be bear in mind,
matters, like bananas, are different in every aspects.
6.5.6. Because if thrust of the argument will be based on such
assumption that is not detailedly verified, the tendency is that the
same argument will just be committed and applied when another
similar instance or incident occurs sans (without) really and duly
scrutinizing its truth to the detail.
6.5.7. When this scenario is committed, to allow the argument to apply
to others similarly situated just because said argument was
formerly sustained, the fallacy of slippery slope is committed

6.6. Fallacies of Equivocation: False Analogy, Strawman, Red

Herring, and Complex Question
6.6.1. Equivocation simply means ambiguity (confusion). In figures of
speech, it is akin to metaphor, in that a word stands for one
8
 thing, but which word is not exclusively designated with uniform
meaning, e.g., pale (color of skin) pale (item for storing water);
in argument: (proposition) There is no absolute Truth, (counter-
proposition/interrogatory) Is that true?, (affirmation of
proposition) Yes, that is true (that there is no absolute truth). In
this example, outright, the claim that there is no absolute truth
will be falsified when the very claim is itself asked if that is true,
because if the claim will so hold that it is true that there is no
absolute truth, then this very claim that there is no absolute truth
will itself be not true. Another example is the claim all is
meaningless (Ecclesiastes). To hold that all is meaningless,
even this same statement itself, is false because it there must be
meaning to hold as true in claiming that all is meaningless, which
is contrary to what the claim obviously suggests.

6.6.2. Many arguments in this line equivocate or commit the fallacy of

ambiguity, in that same words are used differently or ascribed
different meanings on each different occasion where said words
are employed. Another example would be: If God is all-powerful,
then can he make the most heaviest stone that he cannot lift?
The ambiguous effect is that God will not be all-powerful if he
cannot make the most heaviest stone that he cannot lift. On the
other hand, if he can indeed make such stone, he is still not all-
powerful since he cannot lift it.

6.6.3. To avoid fallacies of equivocation or ambiguity (the fault for which

lies on the usage of words), the second rule (What does that
mean? OR What do you mean by that) must be observed.
Simply, provide the clear definition and explanation of the terms
used and how it is used in a given argument.

6.6.4. Strawman (scarecrow) fallacy is committed when an alternative

argument is created deliberately misrepresenting the authentic or
original argument. Such that this strawman argument is much
easier to refute and falsify than the original. The fault lies in the
misrepresentation or deceit that since the strawman is defeated,
it follows that the defeat applies as well to the original argument.
For example, since humans are superior beings than animals,
then it is alright for humans to eat animals (strawman). Since
aliens are superior beings than humans, then it must likewise be
alright for aliens to eat humans (original argument to be refuted).

6.6.5. If attention and discussion is shifted from refuting the proposition

that it will be alright for humans to be eaten by aliens (on account
of the strawman argument), to the proposition that it is alright for
humans to eat animals, the fallacy of red herring is committed. It
is red herring because there is created a false presumption that
the strawman and original argument are on the same footing,
such that proving the truth of the strawman argument is in itself a
clear refutation of the original argument.

6.6.6. On the other hand, the fallacy of False Analogy is committed

when two entities are equated by way of analogy, which in truth
and in fact cannot be identically or similarly considered. E.g., a

9
 horse with a broken leg is useless (analogy). Thus, a person with
a broken leg is likewise useless.

6.6.7. The complex question fallacy if also known as mistake of

assumption, or error in assuming. It is committed when the
question assumes the truth of a hidden conclusion that since an
argument is applicable to a given situation or matter that it is
likewise applicable to other situations as well. In this sense, the
complex question fallacy is akin to hasty generalization, the
difference being is that the latter involves matters of quantity
while the former involves issues of values other than quantity.
For example, since our superiority over animals is the reason
why we can justify killing them and having them for our food,
then there is no reason why the superiority of an alien race can
justify them in having us for their food, as well.

6.7. Numbers fallacies: Division and Composition

6.7.1. There is created a fallacy of Division when it is assumed that the
argument or proposition applies to every member of a class
when it is proven that the same applies to the entity where each
member belongs. E.g., Students from U.P. are political activists.
Anna is a U.P. student. Therefore, Anna is a political activist.

6.7.2. There is created a fallacy of Composition when it is assumed

that the argument or proposition applies to the entity to which the
member belongs since the same applies to the latter. E.g.,
Marcos is a UP student, and intelligent. Ninoy is a UP student,
and also intelligent. Joker Arroyo is a U.P. student, and
intelligent. All UP students are therefore intelligent.

6.8. The Mistaken Referrence / Relevance fallacies:

6.8.1. Argumentum Ad Hominem (argument directed to the person)
the fallacy consists in attacking the personality of the proponent
of the argument instead of the argument only. This is erroneous.
e.g., Former Chief Justice Coronas claim on constitutional
reform must be disregarded, since he himself was impeached.
6.8.2. Argumentum Ad Baculum (appeal to use of force) the fallacy
consists in employing threat, force, intimidation or violence in
attacking an argument proposed instead of the argument solely.
E.g., The Presidents DAP must be declared as lawful by the SC,
otherwise, the President will file impeachment cases against the
SC Justices.
6.8.3. Argumentum Ad Misericordiam (appeal to emotion/pity) this is
self-explanatory. E.g., Enrile must be allowed bail in his plunder
case at Sandiganbayan, because he is old, fragile, and sick.
6.8.4. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy
consists in the claim that since nobody or none has disproven
the matter at issue, therefore, the same must be considered true.
e.g., Pre-marital sex is constitutional. No law declares otherwise.
6.8.5. Argumentum Ad Populum (appeal to popularity and tradition)
the fallacy consists in the mistake of referring to prominence and
tradition instead of the sufficiency of evidence of the argument.

10
 e.g., artificial birth control methods are lawful and valid, because
majority of citizens think so.
6.8.6. Argumentum Ad Vericundiam (appeal to authority) it is not
fallacious per se to refer to authority, so long as it is the proper or
appropriate authority. It is fallacious if resort is made to the
wrong authority. E.g., Budget Secretary Abad is innocent in the
DAP issue, because the President says so.
6.8.7. Petitio Principii (begging the question) the fallacy consists
literally in begging the issue. E.g., the perpetrator who killed the
victim is the accused (proposition/conclusion). Because he is the
one being accused in the case (premise). E.g., the DAP is
unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court says so.
6.8.8. IN GENERAL, these mistaken fallacies or other fallacies of
relevance are erroneous because the proof/premise is made to
the improper or wrong reference. However, if the aforecited
referents are deemed or made, indeed, relevant to the argument,
then the error will be discarded.

III. - RELEVANT LEGAL TERMS, MAXIMS, AND

RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION:

a gratis argumentis; arguendo - for the sake of argument

a quo - from which or whom
ab initio - from the beginning; from first to last
aberratio ictus - stray blow; a blow received by a person intended for another
accessio cepit principa - an accessory follows the principal
accion publiciana - an action for recovery of possession
accion reinvindicatoria - an action for recovery of title or ownership
acto nulo - a void act
ad litem - just for a particular action ; a 'guardian ad litem' is one appointed to
represent a minor or an incompetent just for a particular action.
amicus curiae - A friend of the court, one who appears in a legal action to give
his views on the legal issues raised in the case.
case at bar - case being tried by trial court in exercise of its original jurisdiction
case at bench - the case being heard before an appellate court
damnum - damage
dictum - something said in passing, not essential to the decision (see holding)
ejusdem generis - of the same kind
ex parte - at the instance of one party only, w/out representation of other side
en banc - that is, when all the judges in a division or collegiate court are seated

11
 fee simple - shortened form of 'estate in fee simple,' referring to an absolute
form of ownership
fungible goods - Goods of a kind in which all units are identical
in esse - in being; existing
in pare material - on the same topic
in personam - in person, said of an action to make someone personally liable
in propria persona; pro sei - in his own behalf, representing oneself, not by
an attorney; for oneself representing oneself without an attorney
in re - in regard to
in rem - said of an action to subject specific property to liability
inter alia - among other things
Intestatei - said of someone who dies without having made any will
lex loci - law of the place, the law of the place where the court is
lex loci actus - the law of the place of the act
lex loci contractusi - the law of the place of the contract
lex loci rei sitae - the law of the place where the thing is located
lis pendens - a pending suit
mens rea - criminal intent
mutatis mutandis - the same except for a change in details
nil - nothing; zero
nunc pro tunc - now for then, as in backdating
per curiam - by the court acting unanimously; no dissent
stare decisis - stand by what is decided

SIGNIFICANT LATIN MAXIMS

A
Accessorium non ducit sed sequitur suum principale - An accessory does not draw,
but follows its principal.
Acta exteriora iudicant interiora secreta - Outward acts indicate the inward intent.
Actori incumbit onus probandi - The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - The act does not make one guilty unless
there be a criminal intent.

B
Bona fide - Sincere, in good faith

12
C
Caveat emptor - Let the purchaser beware.
Corpus delicti - The body, i.e. the gist of crime.

D
De facto - In fact.
Delegata potestas non potest delegari - A delegated authority cannot be again
delegated.

E
Ex post facto - By reason of a subsequent act.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat - The burden of the proof lies upon him
who affirms, not he who denies.

I
Impotentia excusat legem - Impossibility is an excuse in the law.
In delicto - At fault.
In esse - In existence.
In loco parentis - In place of the parent.
In omnibus - In every respect.
Inter alia - Amongst other things.
Interim - Temporary, in the meanwhile.
Ipso facto - By that very fact.

J
Justitia nemini neganda est - Justice is to be denied to no one.

L
Lex dilationes abhorret - The law abhors delays.
Lex prospicit not respicit - The law looks forward, not backward.

M
Mala fide - In bad faith.
13
Mala in se - Bad in themselves.
Mala prohibita - Crimes prohibited.
Malo animo - With evil intent.
Mens rea - Guilty state of mind.

N
Nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto - No one be twice punished for same offence.
Nexus Connection
Non sequitur - An inconsistent statement, it does not follow

P
Par delictum - Equal fault.
Pari passu - On an equal footing.
Per curiam - In the opinion of the court.
Post mortem - After death.
Prima facie - On the face of it.
Pro hac vice - For this occasion.
Pro rata - In proportion.
Pro tempore - For the time being.

Q
Qui prior est tempore potior est jure - He who is prior in time is stronger in right.
Qui tacet consentire videtur - He who is silent appears to consent.
Quid pro quo - Consideration. something for something.

R
Res - Matter, affair, thing, circumstance.
Res gestae - Things done.
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet - Things done between strangers ought
not to affect third person, who is stranger to transaction.
Res judicata accipitur pro veritate - A thing adjudged is accepted for the truth.
Res nulis Nobodys property.

S
Salus populi est suprema lex - The safety of the people is the supreme law.
14
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas - So use your own as not to injure anothers
property.
Stare decisis - To stand by decisions (precedents).
Sui generis - Unique.

U
Ubi jus ibi remedium est - Where there is a right there is a remedy.

V
Verbatim - Word by word, exactly.
Vice versa - The other way around.
Vide - See.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt - laws serve the vigilant, not who sleep.
Vir et uxor consentur in lege una persona - husband and wife are regarded as one.
Volenti non fit injuria - An injury is not done to one consenting to it.
Voluntas in delictis non exitus spectatur - In offences, intent and not result is looked.

IV. - NOTES From Authoritative References: (See attached/highlighted

portions)

1. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Manual of Judicial Writing. 2005

2. Bryan A. Garner. The Elements of Legal Style. 1991
3. Bryan A. Garner. Legal Writing in Plain English. 2001
4. Lynn Squires/Marjorie Dick Rombauer. Legal Writing in a Nutshell. 1982
5. William Strunk, Jr. & E.B. White. The Elements of Style. 2000

V. - Bar Exam Tips & Observation:

15
1) Avoid redundant or repetitive words. They do not yield good or favourable
remarks, but annoyance and excess. Do not use words, phrases or
sentences that are not necessary or wanting. (Occams Razor)

1.1. Go straight to the point, employing minimal words. Do not repeat the
question or beg the issue.

1.2. If the questions are, is the contention valid, meritorious or tenable?

Should the petition or case be granted or denied?, answer directly
with The contention is valid or not valid, meritorious or not
meritorious, tenable or not tenable or the petition or case should
be granted or denied. If the question is firstly answerable by Yes or
No, answer directly with Yes or No, the __(restatement of the
question)__

2) Whenever possible, avoid or minimize the use of compound (2 sentences

joined together and made as one sentence) or complex (more than 2
sentences) sentences.

2.1. Compound or complex sentences are usually joined by connective

punctuation marks, such as comma (,), hyphen (-), semi-colon (;),
colon (:), and the likes.

2.2. Know and be observant of the usages of these connectives or

punctuation marks, i.e., what is the purpose of their use?, how are
they actually used in a sentence or paragraph?

2.3. Use plain English and simple sentence construction.

2.4. Always bear in mind that Examiners are always keen on grammatical
rules and sentences syntax (structure/organization of a sentence, i.e.,
subjectpredicate relation complexed with use of connective marks).

3) Practice correct grammar, i.e., use of singular/plural tenses (s, es),

present, past, and future tense (is, was, has been), employment of (do,
does, did), and (thereof, thereto, therefrom).

3.1. Check proper preposition use (on, in, under, at, upon, to).

3.2. Proper use of conjuctives (And, Or, Either/Or, Neither/Nor, With)

3.3. Instead of saying, example, just use e.g., or for like, use i.e.,.

4) Proper use of conclusion and premise indicators (conclusion indicators:

thus, hence, henceforth, accordingly, as a result, so, as such, in
conclusion, consequently, therefor; premise indicators: in addition,
additionally, moreover, further, furthermore, in conjunction, in relation,
pertinently, anent, vis--vis, a propos, since, as, because).

16
5) Avoid factual conclusions or conclusion/assumption of facts, and, also, of
inferring, adding, or altering facts not provided in the problem.

5.1. Sometimes, this practice is risky because you have to depend the
validity and truth of your factual conclusion on the condition as to
whether your facts and premises do provide the support needed to
sustain your conclusion of facts. To be safe, simply avoid.

5.2. For factual conclusions merely serve as opinions. Opinions are not
relevant to the examiner because it merely repeats that which is
already implied or drawn by the factual circumstances cited.

5.3. If factual conclusion is to be made at all, conclude with the

employment of the law or jurisprudence.

5.4. Likewise, avoid inferring, adding, or altering facts not provided in the
problem. It is safer to use or refer to the facts given, and not to alter
the same or substitute other terms or circumstances not explicitly or
expressly given or provided in the problem/case.

6) Action words are better than adjectives, adverbs and linking verbs. Provide
action to the subject of the sentence.

7) Memorize and do not forget KEY WORDS either of the statute or famous
Jurisprudence (i.e., by operation of law).

8) Use of the phrase as a general rule entails the expected mention of the
exception introduced by the words however, nonetheless, nevertheless,
be that as it may.

8.1. So, if not sure about the exception, do not use the phrase as a
general rule.

8.2. Safe expressions are: according to law, according to established

jurisprudence, as provided by law, as held by the Supreme Court.

9) In correcting mistakes or errors in the test booklet, erase word or words

with one (1) line only.

9.1. For purposes of cleanliness of the test booklet, once redundant or

repetitive words are already written, just leave it at that.

9.2. Erasing it will only make the pages appear dirty.

17
 9.3. However, whenever necessary, make insertions (insert words or
phrases) by using the inverted wedge symbol (/\) for upper insertion
or wedge (\/) for lower insertion.

10)There is no other way to improve reading/comprehension and writing skills

than to often read and write.

18