Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Decision Making 101 PDF
Decision Making 101 PDF
By Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer
9:54 pm | Saturday, October 6th, 2012
In its most simplified sense, judicial decision-making can be reduced to an Aristotelian syllogism
consisting of a major premise, a minor premise and a logical conclusion. Example: The major (or
legal) premise in a criminal case for homicide is “anyone who kills another shall be jailed.” The
minor (or factual) premise is “Pedro killed Juan.” And the logical conclusion (or decision) is,
therefore, “Pedro shall be jailed.” The syllogism can be abbreviated in the formula: law times
facts equals decision, or L x F = D.
Essentials of decision-making. Consequently, one must know the law, the facts and elementary
logic to arrive at a fair judgment. To become a lawyer and thus to qualify as a judge takes nine
years of diligent studies—four years for a preparatory college course and another four years for a
law degree, plus six more months of review for the bar exams and another six months to await
the results in which only about 20 percent pass.
Yes, it takes at least nine years of tertiary studies to acquire legal knowledge. Yet the law itself
conclusively presumes everyone, including nonlawyers, to know the law. Consequently,
ignorance of the law is never an excuse for violating it. Thus, if you are caught jaywalking, you
cannot be acquitted because you did not actually and truthfully know it was prohibited to cross
that part of the street. Here, truth is not a valid defense!
Be that as it may, most litigations are won or lost, not on legal issues, but on factual ones. This is
especially true in criminal cases. Here, the issue is not whether killing is punishable; the issue is
not on the major premise of the syllogism. Most frequently, the critical issue is factual, on the
minor premise: whether Pedro killed Juan.
How facts are proven. Facts are usually proven in accordance with the rules of evidence by
documents and/or oral testimony in the regional trial court (RTC) or municipal courts, not in the
Court of Appeals, and certainly not in the Supreme Court, which does not examine witnesses. As
a rule, the Supreme Court relies on the finding of facts of trial courts. Why? Let me quote the
answer from the high court itself:
“The trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses personally and determine by his
own firsthand impressions the credibility of their testimony as indicated by their demeanor on the
stand, the forthrightness of their declarations, the shades of tone and word and pause, drawing
the line between fact and fabrication.” (People vs. Delavin, Feb. 27, 1987)
Though the lowliest in the judicial hierarchy, trial judges are indispensable in determining the
facts upon which most cases turn. Trial judges are virtual kings and almost irreversible when
they acquit the accused in criminal cases, because acquittals cannot be appealed without
violating the rule on double jeopardy.
The Constitution states: “No person shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense.” This constitutional double jeopardy prohibition has been uniformly interpreted to mean
that a judgment of acquittal is immediately executory and cannot be appealed.
For example, when high public officials, like former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, are
charged with serious offenses in the RTC, the counsel of the accused will normally ask for
dismissal on the ground that, as a rule, the Sandiganbayan, not the RTC, has jurisdiction over
such officials, even if no longer incumbents. This legal question could complicate and delay the
trial and adjudication of the case, and could even reach the Supreme Court before trial on the
merits could even begin.
Also, issues of whether the proper preliminary investigation had been legally conducted prior to
the filing of the information, or whether the accused is entitled to bail, could delay the main trial
and could also reach the Supreme Court before the trial court could pass upon the guilt of the
accused.
Moreover, when an accused is charged with a novel crime like plunder, the constitutionality of
the crime itself could be raised as a legal issue that, again, could go all the way to the Supreme
Court, while the trial below is suspended. All these questions of law could interminably
complicate and delay a criminal prosecution.
And even after the trial had been terminated and judgment issued, the accused could question his
conviction because the trial court did not give credence to his proffer of self-defense. He could
also raise many legal issues, like whether the crime for which he/she is held liable should be
plain homicide, and not the more serious crime of murder, or whether the penalty imposed is too
heavy and improper.