Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    People V Burton: Plaintiff-Appellee: Accused-Appellant: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Estee Xooh
    William Burton was convicted of attempting to transport prohibited drugs after airport security found 5.6 kilograms of hashish hidden in his luggage and shoes. Burton claimed he did not know the drugs were in his bags. The court rejected this defense and upheld his conviction. The court also ruled that applying the newer heinous crimes law retroactively would be more burdensome to Burton by increasing the possible penalties and fines compared to the law in place when the crime was committed. Applying the newer law retrospectively would contradict the principle that penal laws should be interpreted in favor of the accused. Therefore, the penalties from the law in effect at the time of the crime were correctly imposed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Burton: Plaintiff-Appellee: Accused-Appellant: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Estee Xooh
    85 views1 page
    William Burton was convicted of attempting to transport prohibited drugs after airport security found 5.6 kilograms of hashish hidden in his luggage and shoes. Burton claimed he did not know the drugs were in his bags. The court rejected this defense and upheld his conviction. The court also ruled that applying the newer heinous crimes law retroactively would be more burdensome to Burton by increasing the possible penalties and fines compared to the law in place when the crime was committed. Applying the newer law retrospectively would contradict the principle that penal laws should be interpreted in favor of the accused. Therefore, the penalties from the law in effect at the time of the crime were correctly imposed.

    Original Title

    1750-People v Burton

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    William Burton was convicted of attempting to transport prohibited drugs after airport security found 5.6 kilograms of hashish hidden in his luggage and shoes. Burton claimed he did not know the drugs were in his bags. The court rejected this defense and upheld his conviction. The court also ruled that applying the newer heinous crimes law retroactively would be more burdensome to Burton by increasing the possible penalties and fines compared to the law in place when the crime was committed. Applying the newer law retrospectively would contradict the principle that penal laws should be interpreted in favor of the accused. Therefore, the penalties from the law in effect at the time of the crime were correctly imposed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    85 views1 page

    People V Burton: Plaintiff-Appellee: Accused-Appellant: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Estee Xooh
    William Burton was convicted of attempting to transport prohibited drugs after airport security found 5.6 kilograms of hashish hidden in his luggage and shoes. Burton claimed he did not know the drugs were in his bags. The court rejected this defense and upheld his conviction. The court also ruled that applying the newer heinous crimes law retroactively would be more burdensome to Burton by increasing the possible penalties and fines compared to the law in place when the crime was committed. Applying the newer law retrospectively would contradict the principle that penal laws should be interpreted in favor of the accused. Therefore, the penalties from the law in effect at the time of the crime were correctly imposed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    o Second, the fine imposed upon appellant is the minimum

    imposable of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), whereas


    People v Burton if he were penalized under the new law, he would have to bear
    268 SCRA 531 | February 19, 1997 | Panganiban the minimum fine of P500,000.00.

    PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines  Thus, retrospective application of Republic Act No. 7659, the
    heinous crimes law would prove more burdensome upon the
    ACCUSED-APPELLANT: William Robert Burton accused and would contradict the basic principle that all penal
    laws shall be interpreted in favor of the accused.
    FACTS:
     MAIN POINT:IN THE CASE AT BAR: The crime was committed on
    British National William Burton was checked in at NAIA for his flight to Sydney, December 26, 1992 or about a year before Republic Act No. 7659
    Australia. When his luggage bags were being examined through the x-ray machine, (which imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death) came into
    airport personnel saw that the sidings and bottom of the bags are darker in color effect on December 31, 1993. Retroactive application of said law
    which made them doubt that something illegal was inside them. At the Customs would not be advantageous to the accused in view of the increased
    Office at NAIA, his bags were slashed and there 5.6 kilograms of hashish (a range of penalty and conjunctive fine prescribed:
    derivative of marijuana) was found. During investigation, 4 blocks of the same
    substance was found to be hidden in his shoes. The Trial Court convicted Burton of o First, cases wherein life imprisonment is, unlike reclusion
    attempting to transport prohibited drugs under Section 4, in relation to Section 21 of perpetua, does not carry accessory penalties. In the event
    RA 6425. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000. that Republic Act No. 7659 is applied retrospectively to the
    accused, he has to suffer not only reclusion perpetua but
    In this current petition, Burton claims that that it was not proven that he knew that the
    also the accessory penalties.
    bags he had checked in at the airport contained a prohibited drug. The Court rejected
    his defense and held that he did not successfully rebut the existence of animus
    possidendi or knowledge of possession on his part when he was found to be in
    possession of the hashish. The Court also held that the penalties imposed by the
    Trial Court was correct because the retrospective application of Republic Act
    No. 7659, the heinous crimes law would prove more burdensome upon the
    accused and would contradict the basic principle that all penal laws shall be
    interpreted in favor of the accused.

    ISSUE? W/N BURTON PLACE IN EXPOST FATO LAW ?–

    RULING: NO

     The crime was committed on December 26, 1992 or about a year


    before Republic Act No. 7659 (which imposes the penalty of reclusion
    perpetua to death) came into effect on December 31, 1993.

     Retroactive application of said law would not be advantageous to the


    accused in view of the increased range of penalty and conjunctive
    fine prescribed, where the quantity of prohibited drugs is 750 grams or
    more.

    o First, cases wherein life imprisonment is, unlike reclusion


    perpetua, does not carry accessory penalties. In the event
    that Republic Act No. 7659 is applied retrospectively to the
    accused, he has to suffer not only reclusion perpetua but
    also the accessory penalties.

    You might also like