MALANA v.
PEOPLE  After escaping several meters from his house, Vicente heard an explosion and saw
March 26, 2008| Tinga, J. | Equipoise Doctrine
Digester: Yee, Jenine
SUMMARY: Vicente, Betty, Suzette, and the latter’s infant were asleep in their single-
storey structure when they were awakened by a fire in the kitchen door. Betty tried to
call for help but when she opened the main door she saw the three accused carrying a
container with a wick. The wick was lit and the container thrown into the house. The
house exploded. After that, the three men simultaneously ran away. This incident left
Betty dead and Suzette and the baby injured. Vicente and Suzette testified before the
trial court. Vicente testified that the accused threatened to kill him before the incident
due to their belief that he was in the practice of witchcraft which killed the parent’s of
one of the accused. Suzette positively identified the two accused but was not able to
identify Elenito. The co-accused set up the defenses of denial and alibi. The RTC found
Dominador and Rodel guilty but acquitted Elenito since he was not positively identified.
The CA and SC affirmed.
DOCTRINE: The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence of the parties in a
criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt
the scales in favor of the accused. There is, therefore, no equipoise if the evidence is not
evenly balanced. The equipoise rule cannot be invoked where the evidence of the
prosecution is overwhelming.
FACTS:
 The petitioners Dominador Malana (Dominador) and Rodel Tiaga (Rodel),
together with their acquitted co-accused Elenito Malana (Elenito), were charged
with the crime of murder and multiple frustrated. The charges stemmed from an
incident on 28 May 2000 that left Betty Capsa-Roxas (Betty) dead, and her
daughter and granddaughter injured.
 The prosecution presented the two adult survivors of the ghastly crime, Vicente
Roxas Jr., (Vicente) and his daughter Suzette Roxas (Suzette), as its main
witnesses.
 They testified as follows: One evening, Vicente, his wife, Betty, Suzette, and the
latter’s infant daughter, Jenny Rose de la Cruz (Jenny), were asleep inside their
house in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Their house is a single-storey structure with
spaces apportioned for the living room, the kitchen, and one bedroom. Vicente
and Betty slept at the living room, while Suzette and Jenny occupied the bedroom.
 Vicente testified that at around 11:30 p.m., he was awakened by the sound of dogs
barking. He saw the kitchen door of their house on fire. He tried to douse the
flames with water, but the fire fuming of the smell of gasoline, spread out instead.
Vicente woke Betty and told her to fetch help. As Betty opened the main door of
their house, Dominador, Rodel, and a third man whom he identified as Ronnie
Malana, suddenly appeared and entered the house. Since these individuals had
previously threatened to kill Vicente and his entire family, Vicente, upon seeing
them, ran through the burning kitchen door and out of the house to seek help
from his brother-in-law, Roberto Oredero, whose house was merely 30 meters
away.
the fire engulf his entire house.
 Meanwhile, Suzette, who was awakened by her parents’ panicked reaction to the
kitchen fire, cradled Jenny and saw the three men enter their house when her
mother opened the main door. Dominador and Rodel were standing behind the
third man. She testified that the third man carried a round one-gallon
container with a wick of three to four inches in length. Rodel lit the wick
with a match, and the third man threw the container into Suzette’s
bedroom. After that, the three men simultaneously ran away. Suzette saw the
container burst into flames and explode.
 The explosion killed Betty instantly, blowing apart her legs and one of her arms.
Her body, from the waist down, was burned. The explosion also shattered and
exposed the bone of Suzette’s left leg and knocked her front teeth out. The
doctors could not save Suzette’s shattered left leg so the same was amputated from
below the knee. Had it not been for the prompt medical attention she received,
Suzette would have died from the injuries she had sustained from the explosion.
Jenny survived the blast with barely any injury.
 Vicente also testified that appellants had been threatening to liquidate him and his
family, due to their belief that he was in the practice of witchcraft by which he
had caused the deaths of Rodel’s parents-in-law.
 Appellants proffered the defenses of denial and alibi.
o Dominador testified that on the date and time of the crime, he was
working as a construction worker in Parian, Calamba, Laguna and
that he had been in Laguna since 11 May 2000 until the end of the
month. He claimed that he was implicated
o Rodel testified that he was recuperating from illness in Binahaan,
Pagbilao, Quezon when the incident took place. He claimed that he
was implicated because he helped Dominador in engaging the
services of a counsel.
o Elenito similarly gave the alibi that he was engaged as a construction
worker together with Dominador in Laguna when the crime
occurred.
 RTC: Dominador and Rodel guilty of two (2) separate crimes of murder and
frustrated murder, and acquitted Elenito on the ground of reasonable doubt. The
trial court acquitted Elenito as he was not positively identified by Suzette as the
third man and his physical appearance does not fit the description of the tall fat
man seen by Suzette.
 CA: AFFIRMED the guilt of appellants but modified their sentences such that
each of them is liable for the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder and
attempted murder; hence, it sentenced each of the appellants to suffer the penalty
prescribed for the most serious crime which is death.
RULING: Except as to the penalty of death, now commuted to reclusion perpetua
pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346,19 we affirm appellants’ conviction.
 There is no cogent reason to disturb the finding of guilt made by the trial court the exploding of the Roxas residence following Vicente’s escape from his house,
and affirmed by the appellate court. The issues raised by appellants involve served to corroborate and shed light to Suzette’s account of the crime.
weighing of evidence already passed upon by the trial court and the appellate
court. Appellants question the credibility of the testimony of Vicente and NOTES:
Suzette and the weight given by the trial court to the testimony of the bomb • The appellate court correctly found appellants guilty of the complex crime of murder
specialist. The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies with frustrated murder and attempted murder under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
of witnesses in the stand and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court Code. The explosion killed Betty instantly,while SuzetteÊs left leg was amputated from
which forms its first-hand impressions as a witness testifies before it. It is also below the knee and she would have died from the injuries she sustained had it not been
axiomatic that positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.20 for the prompt medical attention she received. AppellantsÊ intent to kill is apparent
when they threw the explosive device towards the direction of the victims. The killing of
Whether the accused should be acquitted under the equipoise rule – NO, the Betty by means of an explosive device qualifies the crime to murder under Article
rule is not applicable. 248(3) of the Revised Penal Code. With respect to Suzette, appellants are guilty of
 This rule provides that where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case frustrated murder inasmuch as all the acts necessary that would consummate the crime
is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt of murder were complete but she nevertheless survived due to causes independent of
the scales in favor of the accused. There is, therefore, no equipoise if the appellants’ will
evidence is not evenly balanced. The equipoise rule cannot be invoked
where the evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming.
o Said rule is not applicable in the case before us because the evidence
here presented is not equally weighty.
o Against the direct, positive and convincing evidence for the
prosecution, appellants could only offer denials and uncorroborated
alibi. It is elementary that alibi and denial are outweighed by
positive identification that is categorical, consistent and
untainted by any ill motive on the part of the eyewitness
testifying on the matter. The prosecution witnesses positively
identified appellants as two of the perpetrators of the crime. It is
incumbent upon appellants to prove that they were at another place
when the felony was committed, and that it was physically impossible
for them to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was
committed. This they failed to prove.

Whether the testimony of Vicente and Suzette should be given credence – YES.
 On the part of Suzette, she would not have lightly accused the herein accused-
appellants if they were not the true malefactors of the crime committed. Indeed, as
a direct victim, who lost her left leg to the crime; as mother, who had to bear the
sight of her eight-month old baby injured by burns; and as a daughter, who
witnessed her own mother burn to death, Suzette could never have just pinpointed
to anyone to the crime.
 Under her circumstances, surely, there could have been no other overriding reason
for Suzette’s damning testimony against the accused-appellants save for the
purpose of making sure that justice was done and the culprits of the crime be held
accountable and meted their proper punishment for their dastardly deed.
 On the part of Vicente, while Vicente did not actually see the accused-appellants
perpetrate the crime, Vicente’s testimony lends credence to the fact that the
accused-appellants were present in the place, time, and date of the crime. The
previous life threats made by the accused-appellants on Vicente and his family, and