BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING JOHN DAVE VERGARA Publched & Distibuted by REX Book StorePhilippine Copyright, 2017 by ' JOHN Di ERGARA ISBN 978-971-23-8733-3 No portion of this book may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or notes, whether printed, rimeographed, typewritten, copied in different electronic devices or in any other form, for distribution or sale, without the written permission of the author except brief passages in books, articles, reviews, legal papers, and judicial or other official proceedings with proper citation, Any copy of this book without the corresponding ‘number and the signature of the author on this page either proceeds from an illegitimate source ors in possession of ‘one who has no authority o dispose of the same. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR wo. 3000 Reprinted: January 2023 expan coma 184. Frenting i. Quezon Cy FOREWORD “The unexamined life is not worth living.” — Aristotle Wihave known Atty. John Dave (or JD) Vergara for a long time. His life demonstrates that he has listened deeply to Aristotle's maxim. Our paths crossed in what was then a thriving Christian community in Davao City. We both shared the Prodigal Son’s story—coming from a background of booze and drugs, we came to personal faith in Christ. Even in those early years of our friendship, we seem to love crossing intellectual swords on issues (those days we were arguing over theology and doctrine). We both shared a passion for truth, for its objective nature, and its critical relevance to life. Our paths parted. I left for Cebu and was gone for about two decades. JD stayed in Davao and, I guess unsurprisingly, earned a degree in law and became a lawyer. In 2002, I came back to Davao and our paths crossed yet again, also in a Christian community. And almost right off the bat, we were back to dueling over issues! Finding likeminded folks, we developed a Saturday morning coffee group and called ourselves “Iron Men” (inspired both by Proverbs 27:17, “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another,” and by The Inklings, a reading and discussion group led by such luminaries as C. 5. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien) dedicated to reading, discussing, debating (and we had intense debates!) the great questions of life, which touched on disciplines as diverse as theology, philosophy, science, polities, ethics, etc. ‘As a group, we were passionate to think clearly, rationally about truth and life. And as individuals we were dedicated to aligning ourselves with reality. I can say that JD's skills as a logician were definitely challenged and sharpened by the very animated—and often loud! —discussions over coffee.JD is a deep thinker. His legal training and experience, and his passion for rational argument, definitely deepened his legal and logical mind. This is demonstrated in this book that you now hold. It is a great honor for me to give the foreword for his first publication (may you suffer from a ‘diarrhea of the ink’ and publish morel). Read it. Study it. Learn from it. Practice it. And indeed, that “certain kind of mind ~ the legal mind... a mind that is formed by legal reasoning and argumentation... (strengthened by) some basic rules of logic” (p. vila requirement for becoming a genuine lawyer by heart (not just by profession)—will grow in you as naturally as a seed grows, drawing nutrients from soil, sun, and water. Edgar Rene M. Nartatez PAD Student Ateneo de Manila University Adjunct Faculty, Philosophy Department ‘Ateneo de Davao University To: Sarah, Gio, and TéaPREFACE Bivery school year, thousands of students flock the portals of law schools to get a shot at the legal profession. Sadly, of those who got a law degree, only a few pass the bar exams conducted yearly by the Supreme Court. It has been wildly claimed that next to Japan, the Philippines enjoys the notoriety of having the 2nd most difficult bar exams in the world. Whether this is true or not, we have no way of knowing it, Personally though, it is no exaggeration to say that our bar exams feel like the “Excalibur.” Only the “worthy few” are able to draw such a sword every year. So the crucial question is, how does one become a lawyer? How does one draw the Excalibur? The technical answer of course is found in Sections 1, 2, and 5 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. This rule tells us who may practice law in the Philippines, the requirement of a four-year study of law, and the requirements before taking the Philippine bar examination. But this is not what we are really asking about. Apart from the legal requirement before taking the bar exams, how does one really become a lawyer? We know that there are many who earned law degrees but fall short of passing the bar exams, Satisfying the legal requirement seems not enough. Are there any other things needed to become a lawyer? ‘This humble book tries to answer this question. There is an important personal skill to become a lawyer. This book proposes that becoming a lawyer requires a certain kind of mind the legal mind. The legal mind is nota litigious mind but a mind that is formed by legal reasoning and argumentation. Some basic rules of logic play a vital role in this area. This book teaches law students, or any person interested in thesubject, on how to use logical reasoning in working out legal coneepts with an aim to obtain a legal mind, a mind that is necessary in passing the bar exams. In other words, this book provides methodology in the legal profession. All kinds of academic pursuits have their own methodologies. In legal profession, legal reasoning is the basie methodology. When I entered law school, there was no subject about legal reasoning. Statutory Construction is the subject nearest to this, but it strictly deals with interpreting a law and does not directly teach how to think logically to interpret the laws correctly. Students are somehow expected to learn legal reasoning as a by-product of working out legal concepts. However, this book sets out only the most basic rules of legal reasoning. This is not designed as a workbook with lots of exercises. The contents simply provide a skeletal frame- work of legal reasoning which are needed in analyzing a law, court cases, law school and the bar examination questions. ‘The student or the reader is encouraged to take further steps in applying what is being discussed in the book to develop confidence in legal reasoning. The contents are primarily beneficial to law students particularly during their first year. Almost all of them enter law school with no knowledge of what is involved in the whole enterprise. In this light, this book also serves as a “manual” for first year law students to provide them with some kind of an entry level skills to deal with various legal concepts they will encounter in law school. ‘The examples used in the book are taken from certain provisions of the Civil Code, the Revised Penal Code, and selected cases. Some examples in Chapters V and VI are taken from this website: https://upangphinmalaw,files.wordpress. com. — Accessed date: April 19, 2017. Suggested cases readings are also provided as references for further application of the techniques discussed in this book. oD. Vergara October 28, 2016 Davao City, Philippines Silt mL. CONTENTS: Introduction... Historical Background of Logic Deductive and Inductive Reasonings.. Legal Reasoning... Basic Patterns of Reasoning. Identifying Arguments. Argument Indicators. Nature of Arguments Deductive and Inductive Pattern in Court Cases Other Patterns of Legal Reasoning Reasoning from Definition Ifand Then Reasoning Argument from General Principles of Law... Effective Reading Skills. Codals and Jurisprudence . Read the Materials Repeatedly Look for Important Words, Phrases, and Sentences. Read Contextually. Context in Chapters. ‘The Case About the Facts, Issues, and Rulings Read the Decision of the Trial Court or the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC eae aene“FIR” Method in Case Digests... Historical Discussions... V. Examination Questions Analysis... Objective and Problem Type Questions... ‘The “FIR” Pattern in Problem Type Questions Seeing the Syllogism in the Problem... Facts to Elements (of law) Correspondene: VI. Argumentative Writing. Argumentative Writing Defined. ‘The Syllogistic Pattern in Argumentative Writing.. 52 87 61 61 BRR 70 70 3 I INTRODUCTION (Wher is logic? Here’s an answer from Comedy Central: “Two rednecks, Bubba and Cooter, decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should g0 to college to get ahead. Bubba goes in first, and the professor advises him to take math, history and logic. “What's logic?” asked Bubba. ‘The professor answered, “Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed-whacker?” “sure do,” answered the redneck. “Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard,” replied the professor. “That's real good,” the redneck responded in awe. ‘The professor continued, “Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also have a house.” Impressed, the redneck shouted, “AMAZING!” ince you own a house, logic dictates that you have “Betty Mae! This is incredible!” “Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual,” said the professor. “You're absolutely right! Why, that’s the most fascinating thing I ever heard of! I can't wait to take this logic class.” Bubba, proud of the new world opening up to him, walked back into the hallway where Cooter was waiting. “So, what classes are ya takin?" he asks, “Math, history and logic,” replies Bubba. ea pias2 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING Cooter asks, “What's logic?” “Let me give you an example. Do ya own a weed-eater?” “No” “You're gay, ain't yal" Ona serious note, logic comes from the Greek word “logos,” which literally means “word” or “speech.” It also means “a plea,” “reason” or “discourse.”* The early Greek philosophers began using this term to mean ‘principle of order and knowledge.”* ‘Asa principle, it is used as a tool to evaluate the value of an assertion or truth claims. Today, logic is popularly defined as “the science and art of correct thinking.”' Science is a systematized body of knowledge. Logic as science simply means that it employs the same approach and attitude in studying its object. It relies on careful observation, critical analysis, and conclusive rational proofs. Arguments are the object of study in logic. Here, they are carefully considered and critically analyzed. Most impor- tantly, their conclusions are evaluated as to how necessary or probable their assertions are. Historical Background of Logic Historically, the development of logic as a study can be traced back to the Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers,’ starting with Thales of Miletus around 585 B.C. These pre- "http: okese.com/funny-blue-collar/edx2nz/highly illogical. ~ Accessed ate: October 28, 2016. *httpsilien.wikipedia.org/wikk/Logos. ~ Accessed date: April 19, 2017. Richard D. MeKirahan, A Presocratic Reader, Hackett Publishing Com., Ine, 1995. ‘Andrew H. Bachhuber, 8.J., Introduction To Logic, Appleton-Century- Croft, Ine, New York, 1987, p. 1. ‘*Bachhuber observes the tendency today to restrict the meaning of the word “scienco” to only empirical or natural sciences such as Physics. He main- tains that logic is a scienco in that sense that “it is cortain and systematized knowledge", p. 4 ‘Richard D, MeKirahan, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc,, Indianapo- lis, 1996. I- INTRODUCTION 3 Socratic philosophers asked questions about the nature of the physical world. They proposed various answers and theo- rries to these questions. With these varied answers, the need to find out which one of them are true became imperative. Plato (428-347 B.C,), at least began asking the veracity and validity of ideas and theories. He asked, “What is it that can properly be called true or false?”, “What is the nature of the connection between the assumptions of a valid argument and its conclusion?", “What is the nature of definition?”" This undoubtedly started a way of seeing logic as an object of study. Later, logic became itself a branch of Philosophy." It was Aristotle (884 B,C.) who began to actually lay down the ground for logic as an object of study in itself. In his work “Topics,” he laid down the nature of reasoning to quote, “,,reasoning is an argument in which certain things being laid down, something other than necessary comes about through them.”* This describes what we now know as “syllogism.” Syllo- gism is a form of argument where the conclusion is drawn from a set of premises. The typical examples of syllogism are: “All men are mortal. Socrates is aman. ‘Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” And: “Socrates is mortal. Plato is mortal. Aristotle is mortal. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are all men. ‘Therefore, all men are mortal.” As we can see, the form above contains statements which are called premises followed by a conclusion. The latter comes as the necessary outcome of the premises. The first example "huipaien. wikipedia. org/wiki/History_of logic.— Accessed date: April 19, 2017. “Andrew Bachhuber explains that logic “..introduces us to philosophy by inviting (or oven compelling) us to philosophize. It introduces us to the abstract thinking in philosophy and familiarizes us with some of its technical logy”, p-. "Aristotle, Topics, as translated by W.A. Pickard, Cambridge,4 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING is what is known as “deductive reasoning” and the second is known as “inductive reasoning.” Deductive and Inductive Reasonings Deductive reasoning is an argument where the conclusion is the necessary outcome of the premises while inductive reasoning is one where the conclusion is a probable outcome of the premises. In the first example, we start with a general statement about man — that he is mortal. If we grant that this statement is true, then the conclusion that Socrates is mortal necessarily “follows” as a matter of course. Socrates being “man” is effectively included in the set of “mortals” based on the first, premise, This second premise “necessitates” the conclusion, “Socrates is mortal.” ‘This is deductive reasoning, In logic this “necessity” is known as inference. In the second example, we started with a series of par- ticular statements, namely: Socrates is mortal, Plato is mortal, and Aristotle is mortal. If we grant these statements to be true, must we conclude from these that all men are mortals? Does this conclusion “follows” from these statements? For us to truly conclude that all men are mortals, we have to account for all men in the world not just Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This conclusion therefore does not “follow” and hence, inconclusive. However, is it probable that based on our account of these three persons we can conclude that all men are mortal? Yes, but such conclusion is only “probable,” meaning, it is may be true or not. In other words, the conclusion is falsifiable. This is inductive reasoning, and it is a probabilistic reasoning. To identify an argument as deductive or inductive, is not a walk in the park. How the premises relate to the conclusion "Patrick J. Hurley explains, “the distinction between inductive and deductive arguments lies in the strength of an arguments inferential claim. In most arguments, however, the strength of this claim is not explicitly stated, I-INTRODUCTION 5 iskey. Ifthe premises are such that the conclusion is necessary, then it is a deductive reasoning. On the other hand, if the premises are such that the conclusion is only probable, then it is an inductive reasoning. But let us move quickly to our main subject ~ the legal reasoning. Legal Reasoning In the legal profession, logical reasoning is a vital tool. Legal knowledge is formed by the rules on logic. What we have today as legal knowledge is the product of logical reasoning. Vern R. Walker writes that legal reasoning is the “..tool we use in interpreting constitutions, statutes, and regulations, in balancing fundamental principles and policies, in adopting and modifying legal rules, in applying those rules to cases, in evaluating evidence, and in making ultimate decisions.” This means that a law student, in pursuing a law degree, and a lawyer, writing his pleadings, must use logical reasoning for such respective tasks. It is the student's tool for law studies and the lawyer's tool for law practice. This is true with the job of judges and justices. Court decisions are formed using legal reasoning. Logical reasoning therefore is the bedrock of all legal knowledge. In the following chapters, we will see how the patterns of reasoning that are taken from logic are applied to legal reasoning. We will see how these can apply when analyzing the law, court cases, including law school and bar examination questions. So we must use cur interpretive skills to evaluate it” Patrick J. Huerley, A Concise Introduction. to Logic, Wadsworth Publishing Company, California, 1991, p. 28. Vern Walker, Discovering the Logic of Legal Reasoning, Hofstra Law Review,(http://echolarlycommona.law.hofstra.cdwegilviewcontent.cgitarticlo "22838 context=hlr) — Accessed date: March 28, 2017.I BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING [Bherything in the universe has form — squares, rec- tangles, circles, triangles, etc. These forms make up all things around us. The early Greek philosophers observed these forms when they studied geometry. They saw these shapes as repeating patterns found in leaves, trees, mountains, sky, and everything else in nature. What is more profound is that, these philosophers observed that these shapes or patterns can be understood mathematically. This became the way they viewed mathematics." Aristotle applied this notion of shapes and patterns in logical reasoning. Like mathematics, reasoning has a pattern, a shape. Through these patterns, assertions can be evalua- ted. The truth and validity of any assertion can be known by evaluating reasoning patterns. These patterns in turn, make up the rules of logic. We have introduced its most basic form in Chapter 1, namely, the syllogism and the patterns of reasoning such as deductive and inductive reasoning, All these, along with other kinds of arguments such as arguing from authority, arguing from definition, and arguing from analogy are the very methods used by lawyers and judges in formulating legal concepts, interpreting statutes and resolving legal problems.* However, legal reasoning adds its own unique pattern. Lawyers and judges use the “FIR” method. FIR stands for "Keith Devlin, The Math Gene, Phoenix, 2001, p. 10. "Vern Walker, Discovering the Logic of Legal Reasoning, Hofstra Law Review, (http:ilscholarlycommons.law hofstra.edulegi/viewcontent.cgiarticle= 22838&context =hlr) ~ Accessed date: March 28, 2017. erg) IL- BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 7 “facts,” “issues,” and “ruling.” Facts refer to the factual content of a legal problem, the issues are the points of contentions therein, and the ruling is the conclusions or more specifically, the decisions of the courts in the resolution of such legal problem. This is also the underlying pattern used by lawyers in writing pleadings and other papers such as motions or petitions submitted to the court, Law students are also trained to use this pattern in digesting published decisions of the Supreme Court. We will discuss this further in Chapter 4. Identifying Arguments Understanding legal reasoning starts with identifying arguments. Arguments are the specimen in learning legal reasoning. ‘To an untrained mind, an argument is lost in the sea of words: Example 1: “They placed social harmony above individual rights, welfare of the community over individual satisfaction, compassion above apathy, sacrifice over self-fulfillment, spirituality above materialism, and they taught that the social life of a person must always be in harmony with the universe. Thus, under such ideology, the indigenes’ customary law developed such notions as communal own- ership of land, the right to ancestral domain, acquisition of virgin land through family cultivation, concepts of eco- logical (as distinguished from environmental) justice, and development of methods of resolving disputes by using a ‘go-hetween’, or by the use of metaphors instead of logical reasoning’ This long winded paragraph, which is actually composed of only two sentences, appears to be highly confusing at first glance. But by carefully looking at certain “key” words in this paragraph, its main idea is shown and its argument is seen. Here we see the word “thus” which by itself, indicates some "Pacifico A. Agabin, The Influence of Philippine Indigenous Law in the ‘Development of New Concept of Soeial Justice, IBP Journal, October-December 2011, Vol. 88, No. 4, pp. 8-48 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING kind of a concluding thought. This indicates that from the word “thus” everything that follows is a conclusion or a part thereof. With this in mind, we can simply mentally add the word “because” at the beginning of the first sentence, and we can now see its argument: “Because) They placed social harmony above indi- vidual rights, welfare of the community over individual satisfaction, compassion above apathy, sacrifice over self-fulfillment, spirituality above materialism, and they ‘taught that the social life of a person must always be in harmony with the universe. Thus, under such ideology, the indigenes’ customary law developed such notions as communal ownership of land, the right to ancestral domain, acquisition of virgin land through family cultivation, concepts of ecological (as distinguished from environmental) justice, and deve- lopment of methods of resolving disputes by using a ‘go- cor by the use of metaphors insted of logical Now we know that the argument is simply this: Because they (the indigenous referred to in this paragraph) put importance in social harmony and community welfare over individual needs and desires, indigenous custom- ary law develop the following concepts, namely, com- munal ownership, right to ancestral domain, etc. The argument is that indigenous customary law is such because of the indigenous peoples’ values. Argument Indicators ‘What we did here is simply identify an “argument indi- cator” which is the word “thus” in the example no. 1. Argument indicators help us unlock the intended argument in statements like the example above. ‘The following are the typical examples of concluding words which serves as argument indicators:* “See Patrick J. Hurley, p. 3 II- BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING ° therefore, hence whence accordingly wherefore thus consequently it follows that we may conclude entails that We may infer implies that It must be that asa result Whenever we see these words or any words that con- cludes, we know that an argument exists. Another argument indicator in the example above is the word “because” which we added to example no. 1. When statements begin with “because” it indicates an argument. The word is indicative of some kind of a cause and effect: “because A killed B, A is liable for homicide.” Below is another example: Example 2: “Because preliminary investigation began as a judi- cial process conducted by a judge to determine reasonable ground and probable cause whether or not to issue a warrant of arrest, the present preliminary investigation effectively disallow the cooperation of the police and pro- secutors in case build-up and investigation crucial to the successful prosecution and conviction of criminals.”* Here, we see the word “because” from the start of this sentence. It is indicative of the cause of some effect. What is the cause here? The cause is that preliminary investigation was conducted as a judicial process. What is the effect? The effect is this: preliminary investigation disallows police and prosecutors to “cooperate” or work together to build up the criminal investigation crucial to the conviction of criminals. ‘This observation is made because in preliminary investiga- tions, prosecutors are expected to assume an impartial role like that of judges in determining probable cause. In such ila M. De Lima, Geronimo L. Sy, A Short History of Preliminary Investigation, TBP Journal, October-December 2011, Vol. 36, No. 4, p. 84.10 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING system, they distance themselves from police investigators and this is counterproductive in the development of a criminal case according to this argument because these prosecutors are the ones who will eventually prosecute the ease in court. Another argument indicator which is often used is the term, “admittedly.” The idea is quite obvious: something is admitted as true or obviously agreeable. It may be an evidence, a testimony, or a theory and the same is admitted as true or considered as obviously agreeable. Example 3: “Admittedly, petitioners had been granted a right of ‘way through the other adjacent lot owned by the Spouses “Aree. In fact, other lot owners use the said outlet in going to and coming from the public highway. Clearly, there is, an existing outlet to and from the publie road.”* Here, what is said to be admitted is the existence of a right, of way. The use of lot owners of such passage way as an outlet to the public road shows an obvious conclusion that a right of way exists. The conclusion of this argument is indicated by the word “Clearly.” Nature of Arguments Arguments are statements which try to prove something as true (or false)." In other words, these statements have “evidentiary” nature in them that qualify them as arguments. In the published court decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court known as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA), we can identify the arguments of the following participating courts in a case, namely, the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and of course, the Supreme Court itself. The same is true in labor cases where there are levels such as the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and of course, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme “Quoted from Survey of 2010 Supreme Court Decisions in Property and Land Registration, TBP Journal, October-December 2011, Vol. 36, No. 4, p. 118. "Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont California, 1991, p. 18. IL--BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING n Court. It is important that in reading the SCRA, we must be able to identify and evaluate all the arguments made by the lower courts therein and not just look at the arguments made by the Supreme Court. However, the arguments of the lower courts in the SCRA are normally written in the third person as they are simply referred to by the Supreme Court. But we can deduce these arguments by carefully understanding what the statements say about them. Let us look at some examples. Example 4: “he RTC also ruled that treachery attended the killing of the victim for the prosecution's evidence shows that accused-appellant suddenly and unexpectedly appeared and shot the victim who did not sense any danger upon him."* Isthere an argumentin this statement? Yes. The Regional ‘Trial Court (RTC) is arguing that the crime committed by the accused is murder because the killing is by means of treachery. Treachery in the Revised Penal Code refers to the manner of committing the crime. Killing a person can either be homicide or murder depending on the presence of qualifying circumstances such as, in this example, treachery. With treachery, the killing is committed in such a way that its execution is ensured without danger to the perpe- trator. Here, the RTC argues that the accused “suddenly and unexpectedly appeared and shot the victim who did not sense any danger upon him” which connotes treachery. The trial court is trying to prove that the crime committed is murder because of the treacherous nature of the attack. All these are shown to us by the example given. Example 5: “He testified that he was able to positively identify accused appellant at the time of the shooting because the “People v. Llobera, G.R. No, 203066, August 5, 2016.a BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING place where the shooting occurred was illuminated by the moon, the lights from the neighbors’ houses, and the lamp gasera at his uncle's house.”* Here, a person testified that he could identify the accused ‘at the time of the shooting because of the following factors: the place was illuminated by the moon, the lights from the neighbor's houses, and the lamp from an uncle's house. By his testimony of identifying the accused, he is asserting that the latter was the one who shot the vietim. It is relatively easy to deduce the arguments even from these statements. Example 6: “The case at bar takes us to a most difficult area of constitutional law where man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state. To be held on balance are the states interest and the respondents’ religious freedom. Tn this highly sensitive area of law, the task of halancing between authority and liberty is most delicate because to the person invoking religious freedom, the consequences of the case are not only temporal.” From this example, we see a first person statement by the Supreme Court. Do you find an argument in these state- ments? Not really. These statements do not appear to be proving something as true. They are statements that inform the difficult task of balancing public interest and religious freedom. They are declarative sentences by the court about, certain things. They can be informational but are not in them- selves arguments. The words we see here are preliminary statements which are normally found in Supreme Court eases. Let us have another example from the same case: Example “Bstrada argued, through counsel, that the Declara- tion of Pledging Faithfulness recognizes the supremacy of the proper public authorities such that she bound herself People v. Lobera, eupra. "Rstrada v. Reeritor, AIM No, P.02-1651, August 4, 2008. II- BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 13 to seek means to...egalize their union. Thus, even assum- ing arguendo that the declaration is valid and binding in her congregation, itis binding only to her co-members in the congregation and serves only the internal purpose of displaying to the rest of the congregation that she and her mate are a respectable and morally upright couple. ‘Their religious belief and practice, however, cannot over- ride the norms of conduct required by law for government employees. To rule otherwise would create a dangerous precedent as those who cannot legalize their live-in rela- tionship can simply join the Jehovah’s Witnesses congre- gation and use their religion as a defense against legal liability.” Here, we are informed right away that “Estrada argued.” By careful reading of this paragraph, we find that Estrada argued to disprove the validity of the so-called “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness.” He argued that the document itself recognizes the supremacy, i.e., the priority of public authoritice (existing laws on marriage), and that such document, being a private document, is binding only to private persons, particu- larly in this example, the members of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Cited here is Estrada’s reasoning: “Thus, even assuming arguendo that the declaration is valid and binding in her congregation, it is binding only to her co-members in the congregation and serves only the internal purpose of displaying to the rest of the con- grogation that she and her mate are a respectable and morally upright couple.” In learning legal reasoning, one must develop the ability to identify the argument in a statement. This is a vital skill that must be acquired by a student of law if he is determined to succeed in his pursuit of legal profession. Deductive and Inductive Pattern in Court Cases At this point, we shall discuss the most important and most basic patterns of argument in legal reasoning, namely, "Batrada v. Rscritor, supra.“ BASIC TRCHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING the deductive and the inductive patterns. Again, deductive reasoning is one where the conclusion is the necessary out- ‘come of the premises, while inductive reasoning is one where the conclusion is the “probable” outcome of the premises, The crucial thing to do is this: to be able to identify the “syllogistical” pattern of the argument in court cases. We must be able to construct its syllogism and identify what kind of argument (deductive or inductive) is put forward. From thereon, we will apply this technique in the ex- amples in this book. Let us now construct the syllogism of Estrada’s argument in the example no. 7: 1. Private instruments are binding only to private persons who are parties therein; 2. The Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness is drawn by the members of the Jehovah's Witnesses who are private persons; 3. Hence, it is binding only to its members. By identifying and constructing the syllogistical pattern of an argument, we can easily evaluate its reasoning. With this technique, we can say that the argument above is a deductive argument where the conclusion “follows” from the premises. If premise no. 1 is true: private instruments are binding only to private persons who are parties therein, and if factual premise no. 2 is also true: the document was drawn and signed by private persons, then the conclusion no. 3: the document binds only the parties to it “follows” or “necessitates” from these given premises. That is the nature of a deductive argument, Let us have other example: Example 8: “Firstly, the court is of the opinion that granting the petition would be more in consonance with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual re-assignment, petitioner, who has always felt, thought, and acted like ‘8 woman, now possesses the physique of a female. Peti- II-BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 15 tioner’s misfortune to be trapped in a man's body is not his own doing and should not be in any way taken against him.” Example no. 8 is a petition filed seeking to “correct” the entries of the name and gender in a birth certificate. The petitioner wanted to change his name “Rommel” to “Mely” and his gender being a “Male” to “Female.” He presented the following allegations: that he was already a female physically due to his sex reassignment surgery, and that this now created a factual discrepancy in his birth certificate needing the latter to be corrected. The trial court granted his petition and its argument is the one quoted above. Let us construct the syllogism for this example 1. Petitioner always feels, acts, and thinks like a woman; He is a woman trapped in a man's body; 6s 3. This is a misfortune and the petitioner is a vietim thereof; 4, Hence, granting his petition is just and equitable. ‘The lower court is using the inductive reasoning. Its pre- mises contains particular facts such as: feeling, acting, and thinking as a woman by the petitioner, which are then used as the basis in concluding: that the petitioner is “a woman trapped in a man's body,” that his situation is “a misfortune” and that to grant his petition would be “just and equitable.” Noticeably, statements nos. 2,3,4 are the concluding state- ments for this inductive argument. We already learned that the conclusions of an inductive reasoning are “probabilistic,” which means they are more or less true, The conclusions drawn by the trial court are highly “improbable” or “unlikely.” That petitioner is “a woman trapped in a man’s body,” and that the same is a “misfortune,” and finally that this is an issue of “justice” do not “follow” "Silverio - Republic, G.R. No, 174680, October 22, 2007.16 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING from the particular premise given here. This is a fallacious reasoning known as argument “non sequitur” which means that the conclusion/s does/do not follow from the premise or premises. Further, the statement concluding that the petitioner is a “woman trapped in a man's body” is at best a metaphor drawn from subjective personal feelings of the petitioner. They are “personal opinions” that do not factor in primarily the resolutions of court cases.” Courts of law deal only with facts and law and not with metaphors or any kind of literary devices. Let us proceed to another example in the same case. Example 9: “Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any com- pelling reason justifying such change. In addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. In this ease, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using is true and official name” ‘This argument is clearly a deductive argument. It starts with a general rule about changing one’s given name, i., that a person must show “reasonable cause” or “compelling reason” for him to change his given name. Additionally, such person must show that he suffers prejudice as a result of using his current given name. In this case, the petitioner failed to show any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true name. Although the conclusion is not spelled out here, we know what it is because, again, in a deductive argument the conclusion follows from the premises. The change of name here cannot be granted. “Under Rule 130, Section 50, last par., of the Rules of Court, a witness 2s ofthe emotion, behavior, condition or appearance “gilverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174680, October 22, 2007. IL--BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING ww ‘The syllogisms for this argument are as follows: 1. Aperson may change his given name if he can show reasonable or compelling reason for such change or that the use of his given name causes him prejudice. 2. In this case, (he) failed to show any reasonable or compelling reason for the change of his given name, and neither did he show any prejudice in using such given name. 8. Therefore, (he) cannot be allowed to change his given name. In law, there is what is known as “circumstantial evi- dence.” Circumstantial evidence is an indirect evidence; it tends to prove indirectly the existence or non-existence of a fact or event." In criminal cases, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict a person when: a) there are more than one circumstance, b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.'* Looking at this criterion, we see circumstantial evidence as akin to an inductive argument because the conclusion (conviction in a criminal case) is derived from particular eir- cumstances. Let’s take a look at the case of Viray v. People of the Philippines.” Viray was employed as a dog keeper and was charged with the crime of qualified theft. His employer alleged that she locked the doors of her house and left Viray to attend the dogs in her compound, When the employer came home, she noticed several of her things missing — jewelry, game boy, cell phones, CD players; and that the front door of her house ‘was destroyed. She also found a plastic bag near her bedroom which contained a t-shirt and a pair of shorts belonging to Viray. “ww. freedictionary.com. ~ Accessed date: March 28, 2017. ‘Section 4, Rule 154, Revised Rules on Evidence, Rex Book Store, Inc, 2006, p. 472. MGR. No. 205180, November 11, 2013.18 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING Here, we have several circumstances: Viray was left with the dogs, several personal properties of the employer were missing, the front door was destroyed, and a plastic bag owned by Viray found near the employer's bedroom and containing Viray's t-shirt and shorts. Let us now identify the inductive argument in this case. Take note that in this case, different conclusions were drawn by the trial court, Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. Example 10: 1. Viray was left with the dogs in the house of his employer; 2, Items belonging to the employer were missing, the front door destroyed, and a plastic bar was found near the employer's bedroom containing Viray’s t-shirt and shorts; 3. Aneighbor, a laundry woman who saw Viray at the time of the crime with a male companion carrying a big sack, leaving the house of the complainant; 4. Another laundry woman who said she saw Viray at the time of the crime inside the house of the com- plainant; ‘These are the particular premises in this case. The con- clusions drawn from these however are varied. he trial court, convicted Viray with robbery because the door was destroyed to get the property. It argued that there is “force upon things” and hence the crime is robbery. The Court of Appeals says no. According to it, Viray enjoyed the trust and confidence of the employer because the latter entrusted her dogs with him. Viray breached that trust and confidence when he destroyed the door. Hence, Viray is guilty of qualified theft. The Supreme Court however said both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are wrong: “The allegation in the information that the offender is a laborer of the offended party does not by itself, without more, create the relation of confidence and I BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 19 intimacy required by law for the imposition of the penalty prescribed for qualified theft. Hence, the conclusion reached by the appellate court that petitioner committed qualified theft because he ‘enjoyed the confidence of the private complainant, being the caretaker of the latter's pets’ is without legal basis. The offended party's very own, ‘admission that the accused was never allowed to enter ‘the house where the stolen properties were kept refutes the existence of the high degree of confidence that the offender could have allegedly abused by ‘forcing open the doors of the same house.’” ‘The Supreme Court convicted Viray of Simple Theft only because he was not allowed to enter the house belying the presence of trust and confidence. It seems that the kind of confidence needed to qualify the crime of theft is a “high degree of confidence” which the Court did not see here. Further, what were stolen were those things not entrusted to Viray. Had the dogs been the things stolen, the crime would perhaps be qualified theft. All in all, cases with circumstantial evidence are good examples of inductive reasoning. In sum, we have learned that legal reasoning follows the basic patterns of logic such as deductive and inductive syllogism, To better understand courtcases, we need to identify and construct the syllogistical forms of the arguments found in them. We also learned that arguments indicators help us unlock the logical reasoning of certain statements. In the next, chapter we will explore other patterns of legal reasoning. Exercises: Identify if the item is an argument or not. If the item is an argument, identify its argument indicator if there is any and construct its syllogism. If the item is not an argument, give reasons for your answer. 1, The trial court declared that Aguete did not sign the Joan documents, did not appear before the Notary Public to acknowledge the execution of the loan documents, did not receive the loan proceeds from