Consti II case digest:GENEROSO P. CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:
Petitioner seeks for the reversal of the decision of the respondent court finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of malversation of public funds.
As Supervising Accounting Clerk in the Office of the Provincial Treasurer of Nueva Vizcaya, the petitioner was designated Acting Supervising Cashier in the said Office. In this capacity, he received collections, disbursed funds and made bank deposits and withdrawals pertaining to government accounts.
On April 13, 1981, his designation as Acting Supervising Cashier was terminated, and on April 22, 1981, a Transfer of Accountabilities was effected between the petitioner and his successor. The Certificate of Turnover revealed a shortage in the amount of P72,823.08
Letter of demands was issued and the petitioner was able to pay 10, 159.50 and 12, 067.51 through payment of salary deduction before he was terminated from the service.
A final letter of demand constituting of 50,000 was issued. The demand not having been met a Malversation case was filed.
Petitioner contends that he did not used the money and the money was used by a third person named Pineda, that he was forced to post the said amount even though he did not received the said amount of money.
He also contends that he was on official leave of absence on the said date and he did not know anything about the issuance of the check.
Testifying for the prosecution he argue that petitioner was not on official leave that day, that the petitioner was present on the morning and went to hospital to visit her wife and back to the office in the afternoon.
He also said that there are 4 checks issued Dec. 22, 23 and 29 1980 respectively and liquidated but only the said amount was not posted.
Acting provincial Treasurer Perfecto Martinez corroborated Pineda’s testimony.
He also denied that he had put pressure on him on posting the 50,000.
ISSUE:
WON Equipoise Rule is applicable in the case at bar.

The equipoise rule invoked by the petitioner is applicable only where the evidence of the parties is evenly balanced, in which case the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused. There is no such equipoise here. The evidence of the prosecution is overwhelming and has not been overcome by the petitioner with his nebulous claims of persecution and conspiracy. The presumed innocence of the accused must yield to the positive finding that he malversed the sum of P50,310.87 to the prejudice of the public whose confidence he has breached. His conviction must be affirmed.