LEGAL TECHNIQUES

AND LOGIC
GROUP 2 ABASTILLAS, AIREN T.
ATIENZA, STELLA D.
FRANCISCO, FRANKLIN JOHN T.
MILLANES, JUNNA MAE R.
CHAPTER 2:
Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning
Burden of Proof
Evidence
Admissibility and Relevance
Testimony of Witnesses
Expert Testimony
Examination
Dependence on Precedents
Summary
BURDEN
OF
PROOF
BURDEN OF PROOF
is the duty of a party to present
evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence
required by law.

Section 1 of Rule 131 of Rules of Court

Criminal
cases

Civil cases
 Who has the Burden of Proof?

General Rule:
The party alleging a fact has the
burden of proving it and mere
allegation is not an evidence
Who has the Burden of Proof?

to establish her to establish his

claims defense
Where the evidence of the parties
is evenly balanced, the case will be
resolved against the plaintiff, thus
in criminal cases the accused must
be acquitted and in civil cases, the
complaint must be dismissed.

Equipoise Doctrine
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
is the means, sanctioned by
these rules, of ascertaining in a
judicial proceeding, the truth
respecting a matter of fact.

Section 1 of Rule 128 of Rules of Court

Classifications of Evidence:
1. Direct and Circumstantial
2. Positive vs. Negative Evidence
3. Primary vs. Secondary
4. Conclusive vs. Prima Facie
5. Cumulative vs Corroborative
6. As to Forms
a. Documentary
b. Object
c. Testimonial
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
The General Rule:
If the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document there can
be no evidence of the contents other
than the original of the document.
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Exceptions:
1. When the original has been lost,
destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court without bad faith on the part
of the offeror.
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Exceptions contd:
2. When the original is in the
adverse partys custody and
control.
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Exceptions contd:

3. When the original consists of numerous

accounts or other documents which cannot be
produced in court without great loss of time
and the fact sought to be established there
from is only the general result of the whole.
 BEST EVIDENCE RULE
Exceptions contd:
4. When the original is a public
record in the custody of a public
official or is recorded in a public
office.
ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCE
Admissibility
Evidence is admissible if it is relevant to the issue
If it is not excluded by provision of law or by the Rules of Court
Relevance
Must have a such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in
its existence in its or non-existence
Must proceed from the mouth of a credible witness
Must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the
knowledge and common experience of mankind
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES
A witness can only testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge which
are derived from his own perception (Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence), except as otherwise provided under the Rules of Court.
The Hearsay Rule: A witness may not testify as to what he has learned because he was told,
or he read or heard the same.
Exception to the Hearsay Rule:
Entries in official records made in the performance of duty of a public officer, for the
following reasons.
The entries are considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein
Necessity consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the officers
attendance to testify to innumerable transactions in the course of his duty
Trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty
EXPERT TESTIMONY
Refers to statements made by individuals who are
considered as experts in a particular field.

The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring

special knowledge, skill, experience or training
which is shown to possess may be received in
evidence.
EXAMINATION
A. Direct Examination by the Proponent refers to the
examination-in-chief of a witness by the party presenting
him on facts relevant to the issue.

B. Cross-examination by the Opponent Upon the

termination of the direct examination, the witness may be
cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters
stated in the direct examination, or connected therewith.
EXAMINATION
C. Re-direct Examination by the Proponent After the cross-
examination of the witness has been concluded, he may be re-
examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his
answers given during the cross-examination.

D. Re-cross-examination by the Opponent Upon the conclusion of

re-direct examination, the adverse party may re-cross-examine the
witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination, and also on
such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion.
DEPENDENCE ON PRECEDENTS
STARE DECISIS ET NON QUIETA MOVERE
It is the bedrock of what we now refer to as precedents.
As a general rule, when a point has been settled by a decision, it becomes a
precedent which should be followed in subsequent cases before the same
court.

STARE DECISIS
The doctrine of adherence to precedents was applied by the English courts
and was later adopted by the United States.
In our very own jurisdiction, the doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere
is embodied in Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
ARTICLE 8, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

JUDICIAL DECISIONS APPLYING OR

INTERPRETING THE LAWS OR THE
CONSTITUTION SHALL FORM A PART
OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE
PHILIPPINES
ARTICLE 8, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
When a court has once laid down a principle, and apply it to
all future cases, where facts are substantially the same,
regardless of whether the parties and properties are the same.
Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been
settled.
Only upon showing that circumstances attendant in a
particular case override the great benefits derived by our
judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis, can the
courts be justified in settling aside the same.
 PESCA VS. PESCA
GR. NO. 136921 [2001]

Petitioner Lorna Pesca and respondent Zosimo Pesca were a married couple.
Initially, the young couple did not live together as petitioner was still a college
student and respondent, a seaman, could only stay for 2 months but despite
this they begot 4 children.

It was only in 1988, when petitioner began to notice that respondent showed
signs of psychological incapacity to perform his marital covenant. Lorna filed
a petition to the Regional Trial Court for the declaration of nullity of their
marriage invoking psychological incapacity.
On November 15, 1995, the RTC declared the marriage null and void ab initio.
This decision, was reversed by the Court of Appeals on the basis that Lorna
failed to show proof that Zosimo was indeed suffering from psychological
incapacity that would cause him to be in cognitive of the basic marital
covenant.

Appellant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court contending that
the doctrine laid out by Santos vs. CA and Republic of the Philippines vs. CA
and Molina should have no retroactive application. The appellant further
contends that the application of the Santos and Molina dicta should warrant
only a remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings and not its
dismissal.
The High Court found no merit in the petition. The doctrine of stare decisis,
ordained in Article 8 and the legis interpretado legis vim obtinet that the
interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law.

The interpretation or construction placed by the courts establishes the

contemporaneous legislative intent of the law. The latter as so interpreted and
construed would thus constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is enacted.

It is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds itself later overruled, and a different
view is adopted , that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor
of the parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith in
accordance therewith under the familiar rule of lex prospicit, non respicit.
SUMMARY
Burden of Proof is the duty of the party alleging to prove his claim. Evidence,
on the other hand, is the means sanctioned under the Rules of Court in order to prove
or establish a fact in a judicial proceeding. In order for such evidence to be appreciated
and admitted by the Court it has to be relevant and material to the issue at hand.

Evidence may either be through testimony of a witness or through the

presentation of an object or document. As far as presentation of witnesses is concerned,
the Rules require that they and their testimonies undergo several examinations a
direct, cross, re-direct, and re-cross examinations with the end in view to ascertaining
its truthfulness and veracity.

We also have what we call precedents which refer to issues that have been
laid to rest by previous judicial decisions. This ensures not only the stability of the
judicial process but also strengthens our justice system allowing for continuity.
Thank You!