Equipoise rule and acquittal in criminal cases

Dear PAO,

I was charged with a crime, and the prosecution was able to present pieces of evidence which are subject to different interpretations. I believe that we were able to present evidence that is evenly stacked against theirs. If the scales of justice are evenly stacked, what will the court do?

Iah

Dear Iah,

Please be informed of the ruling in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Fabian Urzais y Lanurias, Alex Bautista, and Ricky Bautista, GR 207662, April 13, 2016, Ponente: Associate Justice Jose Perez, where the Supreme Court defined the equipoise rule and when it applies. According to the High Court:

“The equipoise rule states that where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional, presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.” (Emphasis ours)

The rule simply provides for a means to resolve a possibility where evidence is evenly balanced between the prosecution and the defense. In such a case, there is an “equipoise” or balance of forces so that the scales of justice are not tilted in either way. Even so, justice must still be served and issues must still be resolved such that the equipoise rule applies and tilts the scale in favor of the presumption of innocence of the accused. Nevertheless, the acquittal is not based on the equipoise rule but is rather based on reasonable doubt, as the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. According to the High Court in the same case:

“The basis of the acquittal is reasonable doubt, which simply means that the evidence of the prosecution was not sufficient to sustain the guilt of accused-appellant beyond the point of moral certainty. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, however, is a burden particular to the prosecution and does not apply to exculpatory facts as may be raised by the defense; the accused is not required to establish matters in mitigation or defense beyond a reasonable doubt, nor is he required to establish the truth of such matters by a preponderance of the evidence, or even to a reasonable probability.

“It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty. Upon the prosecution’s failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his life. The constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only by proof beyond reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis ours)

As clearly elucidated, criminal justice requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. If this burden is not satisfied by the prosecution, or if the scales of justice are evenly hanging on the balance, then the presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused because there is reasonable doubt as to the certainty of holding a conviction.

Thus, if the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution and your side are evenly stacked, then the court must still resolve the case, and the scales of justice must be tilted in your favor because, in cases of reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence still prevails and the accused must be acquitted.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]