The application of the Equipoise rule necessarily leads to the acquittal of the person accused of criminal charges. Therefore, this means 50 to 50 pieces of evidence for the prosecution and defense. Therefore, regardless of what they have supposedly done, state laws and principles of criminal law are intended to ensure that justice is served as a result of due process. When I sat on a jury in a murder trial, the judge explained the concept of dubio pro reo to me before we began our deliberations. He said that reasonable doubt is not limited to what we, as individuals, would find reasonable, but to what an imaginary “average person” would believe. Greater attention is being paid to criminal proceedings, in particular because the nature of the offences committed in such proceedings involves the State to a large extent. At the international level, article 14, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that “everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. In the prosecution of a crime, the following provisions apply: To convict the accused for the charge allegedly committed, the required amount of evidence constitutes unequivocal evidence. The legal principle in dubio pro reo (“in case of doubt, then for the accused”, i.e. “innocent until proven guilty”) is now considered the rule of decision in criminal cases (criminal law), according to which the judge must interpret doubts in the evaluation of evidence (evidence) in favour of the accused, so that a less serious crime is presumed or an acquittal is pronounced. As a central principle of constitutional criminal procedure, the proverb is of great importance as the supreme principle of criminal law.
It was codified into art in 1950. 6, sect.. “Faced with two contradictory versions, the Court is guided by the Equipoise rule. Thus, if the incriminating facts and circumstances permit two or more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other with his guilt, the evidence does not meet the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. The Equipoise Rule provides that if the evidence is balanced in a criminal case, the constitutional presumption of innocence swings in favour of the accused. [4]G.R. No. 171348, November 26, 2008 Again, we must emphasize that most of these principles are applied in criminal proceedings. The rule of leniency is in fact used in legal interpretation to make sense of ambiguous meanings of the provisions of the law.
The provision effectively protects any misapplication of the law to court proceedings. This is particularly useful for laws that involve crimes or criminal proceedings, as it provides additional protection to the defendant(s) who might face stronger and harsher treatment of the laws without these safeguards. The same principle applies to all criminal proceedings in the Philippines. The main objective is to remove any confusion regarding the application of the legal provisions. Especially if they are already punishments that could change the person`s life forever. It should be noted, however, that this does not mean that an accused, because he is treated fairly, should be granted the same rights as before committing the crime. There is a change in the rights he or she could obtain once he or she has stepped on the rights of others. The rule of clemency is the doctrine that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of milder punishment. [3] The balance rule is a principle of criminal procedure that the accused may use after all evidence and evidence, for both the prosecution and the defence, has been submitted to the court for evaluation, evaluation and evaluation. Penalex Avocats SA is a law firm specialized in criminal law, composed of Swiss lawyers specialized in criminal law.
The universal justice system has only one goal: to create justice in the most just and equitable way. Many criminal cases that have gone all the way to the Supreme Court are dealt with unfairly by the lower courts. Sometimes, if not most, the favor of the system is to empathize with the victim or the victim`s families. And this is not a peculiarity of Swiss law. All States governed by the rule of law, whether continental law or common law, are familiar with this cardinal principle of criminal procedure, which is also anchored at the international level. If I were accused of a crime that I did not commit, I would like to know that the judge would have to side with me when in doubt. I have never understood the term “reasonable doubt” because there are many things that one person may consider reasonable and another person may not. If they are on the same jury, who knows what might happen during the deliberations? There are countries where this concept does not exist. The prosecutor has the rights and the accused is almost automatically considered a criminal. Even countries that have built their judicial systems on the presumption of innocence still struggle to apply it fairly.
Critics in the United States point to disproportionate convictions among certain ethnic groups as evidence that juries are more likely to ignore doubts for defendants with non-Caucasian defendants. The doctrine [rule of clemency] states that “in interpreting an ambiguous criminal law that establishes multiple or incompatible penalties, a court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient sentence.” In Canadian law, R. v. W.(D.) (1991) is the leading decision in criminal cases where the guilt of the accused depends on contradictory witness statements. The State attaches great importance to ensuring that the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings are also respected. The conviction must result from a valid, legitimate and judicial process, taking into account the superior right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In fact, even the current adoption of the law has been accelerated by some amendments and additions to the criminal procedure. There is no crime if there is no law punishing him. Although some acts may have seemed morally reprehensible and despised by the community, they will not be punishable if there is no law defining them as crimes in themselves. The case depended on whether or not the accused had acted in self-defence or maliciously towards the victim.
Some jurors tried to argue that a reasonable person would seize any weapon available to defend themselves. Others testified that the accused had several opportunities to leave the situation and take a shotgun and kill the victim out of anger. In fact, when applying Philippine laws, particularly in criminal proceedings, judges must take into account various circumstances that could justify, exempt or mitigate a case in order to allow for a fair trial and proper application of due process guarantees. As a general rule, the principle of bio pro reo means that the criminal judge cannot declare himself convinced of the existence of an act prejudicial to the accused if there are objectively serious and insurmountable doubts as to the existence of the admitted facts. Today, the same principle is often applied in criminal proceedings. Each judge of a court should apply this principle when making decisions, in particular in criminal proceedings. The “doctrine of balance” is the rule that states that when the evidence of the prosecution and defence is so balanced, the evaluation of that evidence requires tipping the balance in favour of the accused.