The Universal Justice System has only but one goal: to deliver justice in the fairest and most just way. A lot of criminal cases that went up to the Supreme Court are regarded with unjust treatment in the lower courts. Sometimes, if not mostly the case, the favor of the system is to empathize with the victim or the victim’s families.
Even the public eyes are always in the impression to extend their help and sorrows to the families of the offended party. It is so rarely that the hearts of the people and the system be given to the accused or the defendants.
Thus, the law created a safeguard for the accused or the defendants. They made it so that they will receive the highest form of justice that they so deserve.
Laws are meticulously created as to not deliver any confusion or misinterpretation in the readings of each word of the law. It is well so designed to maintain the just and fair system that the land wants to uphold.
The law also recognized that even those with who are accused to have committed crimes be given the just and fair treatment that they are entitled to, of course, with some imposed limitations.
What is in the principle of Dubio Pro Reo that is significant?
This is when the law created the principle of in dubio pro reo which literally means “in cases of doubt, then for the accused” or in layman’s term “innocent until proven guilty”.
Nowadays, the same principle is highly used in criminal proceedings. Any Judge of any Court should apply this principle in making decisions, especially, for criminal proceedings.
A more emphasis is put on criminal proceedings especially because the type of crimes committed in these types of proceedings highly involves the state.
That means that it is under the discretion of the State whether to prosecute the accused and side with the offended party, given enough cause of action to proceed with the case.
Meaning, there is more weight to the possible treatment of the law to the accused based on the crimes that has been allegedly committed.
Now, if a Judge commits a grave abuse of discretion or committed a mistake in sending an innocent man behind bars for the rest of his or her life, then that is under the conscience of the Judge and the State.
To avoid such things from happening, the same principle was enacted to protect all the parties involved: the accused, the offended party, the State, and the Judge.
In fact, in the separate Opinion of Justice Corona in the case entitled “People of the Philippines versus Beth Temporada”,1 the principle of in Dubio Pro Reo was also defined, to wit:
“When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.”2
The principle of in Dubio Pro Reo is very strict in its sense to give justice to the accused as much as it gives the offended party.
It is not to be offensive to the victim or the victim’s family, but it is to give the proper treatment that should be awarded to the accused.
Of course, it should be reiterated time and time again, that it does not necessarily mean that when a person has been accused of a crime that he is already guilty of it. That is basically the function of our justice system, to allow due process of law.
One should not be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. This is a fundamental principle in the study of the laws.
Regardless, if one is accused of a crime or is the victim of the crime, they still have to receive the fair treatment of the law due to them.
However, it should be noted that it does not imply that because an accused is accorded with fair treatment, that the same rights he had before the commission of the offense should be granted to him or her again. There is a shift on what rights he or she could receive once he or she had stepped upon the rights of other.
That is primarily why the law created this special consideration for the accused. It is because the law recognizes the life of the accused as well.
That as a human being, there are a lot of factors that could have played in the actions and decisions of the person. That there are reasons, motivations, and deciding factors to consider for a person to actually do or say something. It is not pure ill-will or evil that actually allowed the person to commit such crimes.
The faith of the justice system to the accused is impeccably admirable. To the sense that they have go through these lengths to actually create such laws and write these provisions in order to protect even the accused.
What does the term Nullum Crimen Nullum Pena Sine Lege mean? Why is it important?
There is no crime if there is no law punishing it. While certain acts may have appeared to be morally wrong and being despised by the community, still, the same will not be criminally punishable if there is no law defining it as a crime in itself.
It may be an aghast to the person affected but not against the State since the latter has not yet enacted any law, through congress, to define and penalize such reprehensible act.
Moreover, even if a subsequent law has been promulgated defining a certain act a s a crime and penalizing the same, commission thereof prior to the effectivity of the punishing law cannot still be prosecuted as a penal offense.
Laws shall have no retroactive effect as a general rule, and making a certain act as a crime by a subsequent law which penalizes such prior acts will be an Ex Post Facto Law, which is proscribed by no less than the Constitution.
What is the equipoise rule? What is its significance?
Equipoise rule is a precept of criminal procedure which the accused can take advantage of after all the evidence and proofs, both for the prosecution and the defense, are submitted to the Court for it appreciation, assessment, and evaluation.
Application of Equipoise Rule will necessarily result in the acquittal of the person indicted for a criminal charge. Consequently, it means a 50-50 evidence for both the prosecution and the defense. Thus:
“The “equipoise doctrine” is the rule which states that when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls for tilting of the scales in favor of the accused. Thus, the evidence for the prosecution must be heavier to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused. The constitutional basis of the rule is Bill of Rights which finds expressions in Sec. 1, par. (a), Rule 115 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended (see People v. Argawamon, 215 SCRA 652; People v. Ramilla, G.R. No. 101435, 8 November 1993; People v. De la Iglesia, G.R. No. 110991-92, 24 Feb. 1995).”3
In this situation, since the weight of evidence, both coming from the State and the Accused, are equal, the principle will step in to favor the discharge of the accused, hence, he can be exonerated.
It means therefore that the presumption of innocence has been effectively tilted in favor of the accused. The prosecution, in effect, did not satisfy the burden of proving the guilt of the alleged perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt.
“Faced with two conflicting versions, the Court is guided by the equipoise rule. Thus, 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.”4
“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.”5
What is the rule of lenity? Why is it important?
Additionally, in the same case abovementioned, it was clear that the goal of the principle is to give leniency to those who are accused of any crimes, to wit:
xxx
[T]he doctrine [Rule of Lenity] states that “a court, in construing an ambiguous criminal statute that sets out multiple or inconsistent punishments, should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment.”
Xxx
The same principle applies to all the criminal proceedings in the Philippines. The main goal of this is to eradicate any confusion on the applications of the provisions of the law. Especially when it already involves punishments that could forever change the person’s life.
Again, we have to put emphasis that most of these principles are applied in criminal proceedings. The Rule of lenity is actually used in statutory construction to give meaning to the ambiguous meanings of the provisions of the law.
Its goal is to create a just and fair interpretation of the law as not to put the burden too much on the defendant or the accused.
It is very clear from the principle that any ambiguous law should be interpreted in such a way that would be most favorable to the defendant.
This is an important consideration, because again, the law needs to protect and safeguard its people, including those who are put in trial.
If the law does not make any clear distinction to the punishment, it imposes or it is vague and detrimental to the accused, it is the Rule of Lenity that should be applied to make light of these punishment.
In fact, in the application of the Philippine laws, especially in criminal proceedings, judges are to take into consideration different circumstances that could justify, exempt, or mitigate any case as to allow fair trial and proper application of due process of law.
There is a proper computation and delivery of the laws by applying these different circumstances into consideration. Once these are properly applied, it is then the time for the Judge to impose the proper judgement or ruling on the case.
If proven guilty, again with the proper application of the provisions of the laws, there punishment should be computed in a way that would be due to them.
In favorable circumstances, if one is proven not guilty of the crimes charged against him, he or she will be automatically set free.
What is considered reasonable doubt?
In the prosecution of a criminal offense, in order to convict the accused for the indictment he allegedly committed, the quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Conversely, if after all the evidence, both testimonial and object or documentary proofs, have already been submitted and up for the court to evaluate and assess, the same could not have sufficiently proved or established any of the elements of the crime, then, acquittal will follow based on reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubts as to the evidence presented, evaluated, and assessed do not mean that a crime never happened or the accused is without any participation therein.
It only signifies that the evidence and proofs lack moral certainty to pronounce the guilt of the accused, owing to the highest degree of proof required, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, any reasonable doubt that the Court may entertain as to the culpability of the accused based on the evidence presented will result to an acquittal.
The person charged has not been exonerated because he is totally innocent, rather the evidence propounded against him did not satisfy the indispensable quantum of proof.
Final Thoughts
In fact, even the current deliverance of the law has been made faster by some changes and amendments to the criminal proceedings.
This is to avoid any more time that a defendant be behind bars for a crime that he or she might or might have not really done. This is further reiterated in the provisions of Criminal Procedures under the Rules of Court.
In the same light, the Civil Code of the Philippines provided the same protection to the people through the application of Article 4 which states that “laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.”
The provision validly protects any misapplication of the laws to any court proceedings. This is especially helpful with laws involving criminal acts or any criminal proceedings because it is an added protection to the accused or the defendants who might face a greater and harsher treatment of the laws if not for these safeguards.
It is notable that the laws are created to protect its people. It does not only protect the life of the civilians, of the people in power, or of the people whose rights have been trampled on; but also, it also protects the life of those who are in the face of adversity of trials and court proceedings.
Considering that the vast power, resources, and the prosecuting arm of the State is mobilized against the accused, the principle of in Dubio Pro Reo does really give guarantee to the accused the observance of his rights as such.
The State shall make it a point that the rights of the accused, under criminal proceedings, are as well respected. Conviction must proceed from a valid, legitimate, and legal proceeding, taking into consideration of the foremost right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Despite what they have allegedly done, the laws of the State and the principles of Criminal Law shall see to it that justice is served as a result of proper legal proceedings.
- G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008[↩]
- Ibid.[↩]
- Vicario vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124491, June 1, 1999. Cited in the Footnote of the Decision [13][↩]
- G.R. No. 171348, November 26, 2008[↩]
- Ibid.[↩]
