PRO REO/LENITY RULE

The fundamental principle in applying and interpreting criminal laws, including

the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In
dubio pro reo. 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.[6]

Intimately intertwined with the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of lenity. It
is the doctrine 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.[7]

Lenity becomes all the more appropriate when this case is viewed through the lens of

the basic purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to uplift and redeem valuable

human material, and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal

liberty and economic usefulness.[8]Since the goal of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is

to look kindly on the accused, the Court should adopt an application or interpretation

that is more favorable to the accused.

It is on the basis of this basic principle of criminal law that I respectfully submit this

opinion.

EQUIPOISE RULE

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]