Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDGAR LAGMAY Y ALARCON

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 186080 2009-08-14	JULIUS AMANQUITON v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
We apply the pro reo principle and the equipoise rule in this case. Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.[18] If inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one 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 will not justify a conviction.[19]
	GR No. 171348 2008-11-26	PEOPLE v. LARRY ERGUIZA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Faced with two conflicting versions, the Court is guided by the equipoise rule.[88] 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.[89] 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.[90]
	GR No. 149681 2007-10-15	RAMMEL MONARES ANILAO v. PEOPLE AZCUNA, J.
The Honorable Court of Appeals failed to appreciate facts of substance which if considered may result in petitioner's acquittal.[6] Petitioner argues that the CA failed to apply the equipoise rule that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused, citing People v. Lagmay.[7]