Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Decision Making 101 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ellen Debuton
    9 views2 pages
    1) Judicial decision-making can be reduced to a syllogism with a major premise (the law), minor premise (the facts), and conclusion (the decision). 2) Becoming a judge requires at least 9 years of study - 4 years of college, 4 years of law school, and passing the bar exam. 3) Most cases are won or lost based on factual determinations rather than legal issues, and trial courts are best positioned to evaluate witness credibility and determine facts.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Decision Making 101.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Judicial decision-making can be reduced to a syllogism with a major premise (the law), minor premise (the facts), and conclusion (the decision). 2) Becoming a judge requires at least 9 years of study - 4 years of college, 4 years of law school, and passing the bar exam. 3) Most cases are won or lost based on factual determinations rather than legal issues, and trial courts are best positioned to evaluate witness credibility and determine facts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    9 views2 pages

    Decision Making 101 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ellen Debuton
    1) Judicial decision-making can be reduced to a syllogism with a major premise (the law), minor premise (the facts), and conclusion (the decision). 2) Becoming a judge requires at least 9 years of study - 4 years of college, 4 years of law school, and passing the bar exam. 3) Most cases are won or lost based on factual determinations rather than legal issues, and trial courts are best positioned to evaluate witness credibility and determine facts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Decision-making 101

    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)

    “Timidity, forthrightness, surliness, belligerence, indignation, embarrassment, hesitancy,


    glibness, evasiveness, insolence—these and many other indicia define the credibility of the
    witness on the stand. The opportunity of the trial judge to observe all these characteristics places
    him in a better position than the appellate court in resolving controversial issues of fact. This is
    the reason why his findings thereon are received on appeal with great respect, if not indeed as
    conclusive on the higher court.” (People vs. Rivera, Oct. 1, 1993)

    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.

    Legal complications. This simple process of judicial decision-making becomes complicated


    when issues of law come in. Frequently, legal issues arise when the accused challenge the
    jurisdiction of the court where the information or complaint had been filed. Jurisdiction (or the
    power of a court to take cognizance of a particular case) is determined by law.

    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.

    You might also like