Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    People vs. Burton

    Uploaded by

    Le Ann
    - The defendant, a British national, was caught attempting to transport 5.6 kilograms of hashish in his luggage at NAIA airport in 1992, prior to a law increasing penalties for drug trafficking. - The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's penalty of life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine rather than increased penalties under the newer law, as retrospective application would be more burdensome to the defendant. - The Court also found the defendant guilty of attempted drug trafficking, as the quantity of drugs indicated intent to sell and the burden shifted to him to explain his possession.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Burton

    Uploaded by

    Le Ann
    81 views1 page
    - The defendant, a British national, was caught attempting to transport 5.6 kilograms of hashish in his luggage at NAIA airport in 1992, prior to a law increasing penalties for drug trafficking. - The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's penalty of life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine rather than increased penalties under the newer law, as retrospective application would be more burdensome to the defendant. - The Court also found the defendant guilty of attempted drug trafficking, as the quantity of drugs indicated intent to sell and the burden shifted to him to explain his possession.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - The defendant, a British national, was caught attempting to transport 5.6 kilograms of hashish in his luggage at NAIA airport in 1992, prior to a law increasing penalties for drug trafficking. - The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's penalty of life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine rather than increased penalties under the newer law, as retrospective application would be more burdensome to the defendant. - The Court also found the defendant guilty of attempted drug trafficking, as the quantity of drugs indicated intent to sell and the burden shifted to him to explain his possession.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Burton

    Uploaded by

    Le Ann
    - The defendant, a British national, was caught attempting to transport 5.6 kilograms of hashish in his luggage at NAIA airport in 1992, prior to a law increasing penalties for drug trafficking. - The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's penalty of life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine rather than increased penalties under the newer law, as retrospective application would be more burdensome to the defendant. - The Court also found the defendant guilty of attempted drug trafficking, as the quantity of drugs indicated intent to sell and the burden shifted to him to explain his possession.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE VS.

    BURTON he were penalized under the new law, he would have to bear the
    Panganiban [February 19, 1997] minimum fine of P500,000.00.
     Thus, retrospective application of Republic Act No. 7659, the
    FACTS: heinous crimes law would prove more burdensome upon the
     At about 9:30 PM of December 26, 1992, accused William Burton y accused and would contradict the basic principle that all
    Robert, 30 years old, a British national, checked in at the Ninoy penal laws shall be interpreted in favor of the accused.
    Aquino International Airport (NAIA) for his trip to Sydney, Australia.
     The accused had two pieces of luggage with him which he passed 2. W/N he is guilty of the crime of attempting to transport hashish – YES
    through the x-ray machine at the departure area of the airport.  Appellant questions the trial courts conferment of faith and
     The machine showed certain portions of the sidings and bottom of the credence on the testimony of prosecution witness. It is a well-
    bags to be dark in color, making its operator to suspect that something entrenched rule in law that the assessment of a witness
    illegal was inside them. credibility by the trial court is accorded great respect
     The accused, together with his two pieces of baggage, was brought to  The accused argues that there can be no conviction unless
    the Customs Office at the NAIA, where, with his consent, the sidings the prosecution shows that the accused knowingly possessed
    of one bag and the bottom of the other were slashed open. the prohibited articles. Under the Rules of Evidence (Sec. 3[j],
    o Found inside were hashish, a derivative of marijuana, Rule 131, Rules of Court), things which a person possesses,
    which totaled a weight of 5.6 kilograms. or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him.
     During his investigation, the accused was observed to be walking in o In several cases, the Court has held that possession
    an uneasy manner. of a considerable quantity of marijuana cannot
    o Retrieved from inside the shoes were four (4) blocks of the indicate anything except the intention of the accused
    same dark substance. to sell, distribute and deliver said prohibited drug.
     Hashish is a prohibited drug under Republic Act No. 6425, o The existence of animus possidendi or knowledge of
    otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. possession is only prima facie and is subject to
     The trial court convicted him of attempting to transport prohibited contrary proof and may be rebutted by evidence that
    drugs under Section 4, in relation to Section 21 of RA 6425. the accused did not in fact exercise power and control
    o He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of over the thing in question, and did not intend to do so.
    P20,000. o The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the
    possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi.
    RELEVANT ISSUE/S and RULING: A mere uncorroborated claim of the accused that he
    1. W/N life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000 were the proper did not know that he had a prohibited drug in his
    penalties – YES possession is insufficient.
     The crime was committed on December 26, 1992 or about a year
    before Republic Act No. 7659 (which imposes the penalty of
    reclusoin perpetua to death) came into effect on December 31,
    1993. TRIAL COURT’S IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT
     Retroactive application of said law would not be advantageous AND A FINE OF P20,000 AFFIRMED.
    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.
     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.
     Second, the fine imposed upon appellant is the minimum
    imposable of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), whereas if

    You might also like