FALLACY THAT CAN BE USED TO WIN A CASE

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong

moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be
deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are
committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while
others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.
The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the
arguments are made. 

A great number of books, and a smaller number of great books, deal

with informal logic and argument, and each contains a catalogue of
fallacies. A few of the ways in which lawyers use so called “fallacious”
reasoning to persuade juries and judges to favor the position of their
clients. The critical point is that something is wrong with these tactics.
Because some are sufficiently notorious, and transparent to be found
objectionable by at least a few of our most alert judges. Still for whatever
reason, they do seem work. Because they seem to work, they are part of the
basic repertoire of the advocate. Why do they work? First is obvious that is,
that all of these "fallacies" appeal to psychological factors, second, that all of
these "fallacies" appeal to psychological factors.

There are many kinds of fallacies that are actually used by some
lawyers but the most effective fallacy is the Argumentum Ad Passiones.
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passions (“argument from passion”)
is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient’s
emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual
evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and
encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences,
appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to
spite, and wishful thinking. Appeal to emotion are intended to draw inward
feelings such as fear, pity, and joy from the recipient of the information
with end goal of convincing them that the statements being presented in
the fallacious argument are true or false. (The Place of Emotion by Douglas
Walton, page 265)
This fallacy usually used by lawyers in a cross examination and even
in direct examination in court. They actually used this fallacy as an
introduction of their arguments or questions pertaining to the
accused/witness or sometimes in their whole argument and question. They
make it appear that the questions/arguments that they are saying is for the
good of the accused/witness until they can get a very nice answer that it will
lead for winning a case in favor of their clients. Like for example, in
the cross examination of alleged violation of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Usually the prime witness is the poseur buyer/police officer and the
defends lawyer using this kind of fallacy asked this kind of question;
1. Q: Mr. Witness, how long have you been in service?
2. With your line of service, you have handled many cases
pertaining to drug case?
3. Evrytime that PNP conduct an anti-illegal drug operation,
are you the one who act as a poseur buyer?
4. How many times that you have been testified in court about
the alleged illegal sale of dangerous drugs?
5. Nothing further, your Honour.
In this type of question, the defends lawyer trying to manipulate the
mind of the witness using this kind of fallacy that he is an expert in
conducting a buy bust operation as a poseur buyer and he didn’t know that
it is a question that if all answer is in affirmative will come up with the
conclusion that the witness is an expert actor in testifying a scripted
testimony and all his statement is not based on the factual circumstance of
the alleged illegal sell of dangerous.
Another good example is the case of People of the Philippines vs.
Joselito Beran y Zapanta, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014;
(On Cross-examination of PO3 Francia by Atty. Anne Geraldine Agar)
Q: And what was your participation in this case, Mr. Witness?
A; I acted as alalay or back-up, ma'am.
Q: Did you act as alalay on that day?
 A; Yes, ma'am.
COURT: Did you see what happened while you were acting as
alalay or back-up?
WITNESS: None, your Honor. Malayo po kasi ako.
COURT: Wala pala, eh ..
ATTY.AGAR: Nothing further, your Honour.
This type of question has an intention to draw inwards feelings of fear
to the witness. Some lawyers are using this kind of fallacy and they don’t
even know that actually they are using this kind of fallacy. It is a fallacy in
fact, but can be used to win a case, and be remindful that some are
sufficiently notorious, and transparent to be found objectionable by at least
a few of our most alert judges.