Legal logic is a series of well-reasoned thoughts, processes, methods, and principles used to distinguish facts, fair judgement and

good reasoning based on legal principles and accordance with the law. Moreover, in the book entitled “Legal Logic” authored by
Francis Julius Evangelista and David Robert C. Aquino, Logic is the study of principles and methods of reasoning which aims to
determine and lay down the criteria of good or bad reasoning. Furthermore, it probes the fundamental concept of arguments,
truthfulness, and validity to defend and justify our assertions and statements to make rational and sound decisions.

A premise is an argument supporting a conclusion while a conclusion is a generalization based on certain premises.

Conclusion is the statement that is being claimed to be true while a premise is the statements that serves as the basis or support of
the conclusion

An explanation is a statement of facts leading to a conclusion. In contrast, an argument is a statement of certain assumptions
supported by certain facts that together function as evidence supporting a conclusion.

An argument is a claim put forward and defend with reason. In addition, it is a group of statements in which one statement is
claimed to be true on the basis of another statement o statements.

In the book of Gregory Bassham entitled “Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction”, explanation is an attempt to show why
something is the case while argument is an attempt to show that something is the case.

Rose stubbed Jack in the back during an argument over Jack’s alleged love affair.

Rey crashed his motorbike into the back of Rex’s car to avoid a dog crossing the road.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, dismissed for lack of merit the electoral
protest filed by former Senator Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos against Vice President Leni Robredo. In the Case No. 005,
Marcos claimed electoral fraud as the reason behind Robredo getting more votes in the 2016 vice-presidential elections. The
magistrates found no “substantial recovery” in the manual recounts of votes done in selected precincts in Iloilo, Negros Oriental,
and Camarines Sur provinces.

On February 14, during a buy-bust operation, John was caught by the PDEA selling “shabu” in one of the establishments in Iloilo
City. “Shabu” is one of the prohibited drugs under RA 9162.Therefore, John was charged with violating RA 9162 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act.

Legal Reasoning is a process of argument used by people who are involve in legal practice in applying legal rules on certain
issues. It is important to know its components to assert the arguments on the case. The components are:

An Issue is a problem created by a topic and sometimes debatable, while a Topic is a subject focusing on a certain theme.

It is a common law concept derived from the Latin maxim “Stare decisis et non quieta movere”, which means to stand by
decided matters. It promotes judicial stability and consistency. For example, if an Issue had been raised with the Supreme Court
and the Court had issued a Ruling, the said Ruling becomes a legal principle that Lower Courts must follow as precedent in
similar cases. In effect, the Lower Court must observe stare decisis.

What are the three (3) main sources of reading materials for law students and even for those actively practicing the legal
profession? Describe each.

CODALS- (bare law without commentaries or the law itself

In the case of Penalber vs. Ramos, Burden of Proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim of defense
by the amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil case. Moreover, “The burden of proof or
onus probandi (latin) is the obligation of the party in a trial to produce the evidence to prove the claims they have made against
the other party. The burden of production is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the trier of the fact to
consider a disputed claim. It applies to every essential elements of the case.
The practice of law provides that, “in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts
complained of rests on the complainant, and that in the absence of evidence against a court employee or magistrate to discipline
for a grave offense, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Moreover, the burden of
proof that respondent committed the acts complained of rest of the complainant.

Section 1, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court dictates that in civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case
by a preponderance of evidence. Also, jurisprudence provides that: “The evidence as a whole adduced by one side is superior to
that of the other. It refers to the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be
synonymous with the term "greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." It is evidence which is more
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. In addition, in the case of VSD Realty
vs. Uniwide Sales, in civil cases, the specific rule as to burden of proof is that the plaintiff has the burden of proving the material
allegations of the complaint which are denied by the answer; and the defendant has the burden of proving the material allegations
in his answer, which sets up new matter as a defense.”

Jurisprudence provides that: “In a  the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
The burden of proof is on criminal case, the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the accused need not even
offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal.”

Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that: “in the 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”.

What is a trial?

A trial is a judicial proceeding where evidences are allowed to prove or disproved, and guilt of a person is adjudged leading to an
acquittal or conviction.

How do you prepare for a trial?

Subtle preparation for the trial is very important to win the case. It is the duty of the counsel to study the formula and steps on
how to success the case. These are my steps on how to prepare for the trial. To wit: (a) understand the roles- it means that read
the packets including the prosecution and the defense; (b) understand the case- ensure the
WHO,WHAT,WHEN,WHY,WHERE,HOW including the witness statements, timeline and relationship; (c) identify the facts of
the case-know the fact strengthen and weaken each side;(d) analyze witness statements- re-write them and draw a chart; (e)
decide order of the witness/witnesses; (f) create direct examination questions;(g) create cross-examinations question; (h) create or
formulate legal strategies it may be the theories or theme; and (i) just make sure of the opening statement and the closing
arguments.

A trial brief also known as case brief or trial statement. It is a legal document presented to the court in accordance with the
court’s rules of civil procedure intended to provide the court with the presentation of facts, evidence and legal arguments.
Moreover, it is a chance to show the Judge the position on the outstanding issues, as well as the legal arguments for why the
Court should order in your favor.

It is essential to know the function of a trial brief because it establishes the legal argument for the party, explain why the
reviewing court should affirm or reverse the lower court's judgment based on legal precedent and citations to the controlling
cases or statutory law, To achieve these ends, the brief must appeal to the accepted forces such as  precedent, but may also
include policy arguments and social statistics when appropriate.

In this instance, if the law is vague or broad enough to allow the appellate judge some discretion in his decision making, an
exploration of the consequences of the possible decision outside of legal formalism may provide guidance. Such arguments may
also support a legal argument when the purpose of the law at issue may be clear, but the particular application of that law in
service of that purpose is in dispute.

In the famous words of Henry Brougham: “An advocate, in the discharge of his duty, knows but one person in all the world, and
that person is his client.” To be a good trial lawyer, he must possess the following attitudes
Lawyers must be knowledgeable, skilled and capable in the areas of law in which they practice. The lawyer owes the client a duty
to be competent to perform legal services undertaken on the client’s behalf.

Duty of Honesty and Candor- A lawyer must be honest and candid with a client at all times.

Duty of Confidentiality: Subject to a few exceptions, the duty of confidentiality prohibits a lawyer from revealing, at any time or
in any circumstance, any and all information obtained by the lawyer during the course of his or her relationship with the client.

Duty Not to Withdraw;The obligation placed on a lawyer to agree to represent a given client is relatively limited.

The Lawyer as Advocate; A lawyer shall represent the client resolutely and honorably within the limits of the law.

Avoiding Being a Tool or Dupe of Unscrupulous Persons. A lawyer has an obligation to never assist in or encourage any
dishonest or illegal conduct, or instruct the client on how to avoid legal penalties

Direct examination is a series of open-ended question by an attorney directed to a witness that the attorney has called for the
purpose of testimony. By contrast, cross-examination questions are very pointed, specific questions which suggest either a “yes”
or “no” answer.

Direct- presenting own witness, In criminal cases, the defense would only be presenting their own witness if it is alleged as self
defense. In civil cases, it would alse be yhe plaintiff that would be doing direct examination first.

The lawyer of the opposing party would do the cross examination after the presentation.

Section 49 of Rule 130 provides that, “direct examination refers to the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting
him on the facts relevant to the issue.”

Section 5 of Rule 130, Rules of Court states that, “upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness maybe crossed
examined by the adverse party as to any matter stated in the direct examination with sufficient freedom to test his accuracy and
truthfulness.”

Re-direct examination (by the proponent) is the examination of a legal counsel of his/her own witness after he/she has been cross-
examined by the opposing party. Under the law, after the cross examination of the witness has been concluded, he/she may be re-
examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his/her answers given during the cross examination.

A fallacy is an error in logic or reasoning that leads to an argument supported by illogical or misleading premises. It also invalidates an argument
that doesn’t prove anything, even though it may seem to initially make sense on the surface.

Fallacy is divided into FORMAL (deductive) and INFORMAL (inductive) fallacies. FORMAL fallacy refers to an argument whereby premises
offer some truth of inference and they are neither true nor false while INFORMAL fallacy is whereby the premise is not valid and the conclusions
are always false but support the premise argument.

False Dilemma- This fallacy is also called black and white fallacy, occurs when an arguer presents his/her argument as one of only two options
despite the presence of multiple possibilities. Either you full devote yourself to the company or you quit.

Slippery Slope- Argues that once a person allows an event to happen, another event will inevitably follow. It occurs when a series of increasingly
superficial and unacceptable consequences is drawn. If we ban computer shops, then students will not be able to do research. An if they do not
have tools for research, these students will fail their subjects.

Appeal to Pity- It is also called argumentum ad misericordiam, happens when some element of pity is used instead of logical reasoning. Please do
not fire me foe being absent all month; I have a sick mother and a special child to support.

Bandwagon- The bandwagon fallacy, is also called argumentum and numerum, when an argument is considered to be valid because it is what the
majority thinks. Most Filipinas want to have fair skin because they think they look beautiful. Therefore, having fair skin must be the real standard
of beauty.

Hasty Generalization- Occurs when a general statement is asserted which is based on limited information, inadequate evidence or unrepresented
sampling. Martha, the foreigner from France, is very impolite. French people are mean and rude.