OPERATIVE FACT AND PROSPECTIVITY OF LAWS
Operative Facts - A fact that is directly relevant to deciding some question of law. When a legal question is governed by fact-driven rules, operative facts may be thought of as variables that are plugged in to those rules so that the right answer can be obtained.- Adjudicative facts are fact that is either legally operative or important as to be controlling on some question of law. Adjudicative facts re-create the course of events that led to the dispute and help in determining the proper outcome in the case. They differ from ordinary facts in that they are considered facts only if the court recognizes and accepts them.
Que v People 154 SCRA 160 (1987)
F: Petitioner convicted in violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) filed motion for reconsideration before SC on the following grounds:(1) petition for reconsideration denied by a mere resolution with nothing else but the statement “lack of merit”(2) The lower court has no jurisdiction to try the case.(3) Appelate court erred in considering one of the most impt. Element in the offense against BP 22 which is place of issuance of check which is absent in the instant case.
I: WON the decision of both the trial court and appellate court and the denial of the Petition for Review are in accordance with law and evidence
.R: The findings of fact of the trial court reveal that the checks in question were issued at Quezon City
as admitted by petitioner himself in his answer when he was sued by the complainant on his civil liability. It is of no moment whether the said checks were deposited by the complainant in a bank located outside of Quezon City. The determinative factor is the place of issuance which is in Quezon City and thus within the court's jurisdiction. Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 applies even in cases where dishonored checks are issued merely in the form of a deposit or a guarantee. The enactment in question does not make any distinction as to whether the checks within its contemplation are issued in payment of an obligation or merely to guarantee the said obligation. that the bill was introduced to discourage the issuance of bouncing checks, to prevent checks from becoming "useless scraps of paper" and to restore respectability to checks, all without distinction as to the purpose of the issuance of the checks. From the aforequoted paragraphs, it is clear that is the intention of the framers of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum and thus punishable under such law.On denial of resolution by minute resolution, court held that these 'resolutions' are not 'decisions' within the above constitutional requirement. They merely hold that the petition for review should not be entertained in view of the provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; and even ordinary lawyers have all this time so understood it. It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the court's denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals' opinion.
20th Century Fox v CA 164 SCRA 655 (1988)
F: Petitioner sought the help of the NBI in connection with its anti-piracy campaign alleging that some videotape outlets are engaged in marketing copyrighted films in violation of PD 449 or Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property. A search warrant was issued to the NBI which was later withdrawn by the court upon motion to lift search warrant due to lack of probable cause which was affirmed by the appellate court.
I: WON the court erred in lifting the search warrant due to lack of probable cause.
R: Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution provides that no search warrant shall be issued without probable cause.
PROBABLE CAUSE is defined as a valid search as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. The constitutional provisions demand “no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of the search warrant may be justified” to convince the judge, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the search warrant.In the case at bar, the issuance of the warrant was due to the misrepresentation of the NBI that copyright infringements were being committed. There was no probable cause since the agents have no personal knowledge of such fact. Court ordered that the master tapes be presented from which the copyrighted films were allegedly copied for the validity of the issuance of the search warrant since the court could not afford to make any presumption that duplicates were taken from the master copy of the petitioner.Columbia
Pictures v CA 261 SCRA 144 (1996)
F: Acting upon a formal complaint by the petitioner on violation of PD 449, NBI agents surveillance different video establishments in Metro Manila including the private respondent. A search warrant was secured with affidavits and depositions of the NBI with 2 witnesses. Search and seizure of copyrighted materials were taken by the NBI and a motion to lift search warrant was filed and was denied by the court. On motion for reconsideration, the court upholds the motion to lift on grounds that no original copy of the films were presented when securing the warrant citing the case of 20th Century Fox vs CA. On appeal, the CA sustained the ruling of the trial court.
I: WON the ruling on the cited case applicable in the case at bar.
R: No because rules and decisions must be applied prospectively. The ruling in the cited case is not applicable since the ruling in the case at bar happened before such ruling was ever upheld. The ruling in the 20th Century Fox only serves as a guidepost and not absolute since it is not always necessary to present the original tapes before ascertaining probable cause.
Operative Facts - A fact that is directly relevant to deciding some question of law. When a legal question is governed by fact-driven rules, operative facts may be thought of as variables that are plugged in to those rules so that the right answer can be obtained.- Adjudicative facts are fact that is either legally operative or important as to be controlling on some question of law. Adjudicative facts re-create the course of events that led to the dispute and help in determining the proper outcome in the case. They differ from ordinary facts in that they are considered facts only if the court recognizes and accepts them.
Que v People 154 SCRA 160 (1987)
F: Petitioner convicted in violation of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) filed motion for reconsideration before SC on the following grounds:(1) petition for reconsideration denied by a mere resolution with nothing else but the statement “lack of merit”(2) The lower court has no jurisdiction to try the case.(3) Appelate court erred in considering one of the most impt. Element in the offense against BP 22 which is place of issuance of check which is absent in the instant case.
I: WON the decision of both the trial court and appellate court and the denial of the Petition for Review are in accordance with law and evidence
.R: The findings of fact of the trial court reveal that the checks in question were issued at Quezon City
as admitted by petitioner himself in his answer when he was sued by the complainant on his civil liability. It is of no moment whether the said checks were deposited by the complainant in a bank located outside of Quezon City. The determinative factor is the place of issuance which is in Quezon City and thus within the court's jurisdiction. Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 applies even in cases where dishonored checks are issued merely in the form of a deposit or a guarantee. The enactment in question does not make any distinction as to whether the checks within its contemplation are issued in payment of an obligation or merely to guarantee the said obligation. that the bill was introduced to discourage the issuance of bouncing checks, to prevent checks from becoming "useless scraps of paper" and to restore respectability to checks, all without distinction as to the purpose of the issuance of the checks. From the aforequoted paragraphs, it is clear that is the intention of the framers of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum and thus punishable under such law.On denial of resolution by minute resolution, court held that these 'resolutions' are not 'decisions' within the above constitutional requirement. They merely hold that the petition for review should not be entertained in view of the provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; and even ordinary lawyers have all this time so understood it. It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the court's denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals' opinion.
20th Century Fox v CA 164 SCRA 655 (1988)
F: Petitioner sought the help of the NBI in connection with its anti-piracy campaign alleging that some videotape outlets are engaged in marketing copyrighted films in violation of PD 449 or Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property. A search warrant was issued to the NBI which was later withdrawn by the court upon motion to lift search warrant due to lack of probable cause which was affirmed by the appellate court.
I: WON the court erred in lifting the search warrant due to lack of probable cause.
R: Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution provides that no search warrant shall be issued without probable cause.
PROBABLE CAUSE is defined as a valid search as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. The constitutional provisions demand “no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of the search warrant may be justified” to convince the judge, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the search warrant.In the case at bar, the issuance of the warrant was due to the misrepresentation of the NBI that copyright infringements were being committed. There was no probable cause since the agents have no personal knowledge of such fact. Court ordered that the master tapes be presented from which the copyrighted films were allegedly copied for the validity of the issuance of the search warrant since the court could not afford to make any presumption that duplicates were taken from the master copy of the petitioner.Columbia
Pictures v CA 261 SCRA 144 (1996)
F: Acting upon a formal complaint by the petitioner on violation of PD 449, NBI agents surveillance different video establishments in Metro Manila including the private respondent. A search warrant was secured with affidavits and depositions of the NBI with 2 witnesses. Search and seizure of copyrighted materials were taken by the NBI and a motion to lift search warrant was filed and was denied by the court. On motion for reconsideration, the court upholds the motion to lift on grounds that no original copy of the films were presented when securing the warrant citing the case of 20th Century Fox vs CA. On appeal, the CA sustained the ruling of the trial court.
I: WON the ruling on the cited case applicable in the case at bar.
R: No because rules and decisions must be applied prospectively. The ruling in the cited case is not applicable since the ruling in the case at bar happened before such ruling was ever upheld. The ruling in the 20th Century Fox only serves as a guidepost and not absolute since it is not always necessary to present the original tapes before ascertaining probable cause.
RSS Feed