Dado v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of May 25, 1992, a police team, including petitioner Geronimo Dado and CAFGU member Francisco Eraso, was positioned to intercept cattle rustlers. The team, armed with firearms, waited behind a dike. While waiting, an individual, later identified as Silvestre Balinas, approached. Without warning, Francisco Eraso fired his M16 armalite rifle at the approaching man. Immediately thereafter, petitioner Geronimo Dado fired a single shot from his .45 caliber pistol. The victim sustained gunshot wounds and died. The victim was identified as Silvestre Balinas, nephew of one of the team members, not the intended target. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sultan Kudarat, Branch 19, found petitioner Geronimo Dado and Francisco Eraso guilty of homicide. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Francisco Eraso's petition for review was denied, and the CA decision became final as to him. Petitioner Geronimo Dado filed the instant petition for review. The Petition: Petitioner contended that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that he acted in conspiracy with Francisco Eraso and in finding him guilty of homicide based on the evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner acted in conspiracy with Francisco Eraso in the commission of the crime. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that the petitioner inflicted the fatal wound that caused the victim's death. Whether the petitioner is guilty of homicide or illegal discharge of firearm.
Ruling
The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of petitioner for homicide. A new decision was entered finding petitioner Geronimo Dado guilty of the crime of illegal discharge of firearm and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and eleven (11) months of prision correccional, as maximum. Petitioner was acquitted of the crime of homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conspiracy: The Court ruled that conspiracy was not sufficiently alleged in the Information. The Information did not contain words like "conspired," "confederated," or "acting in concert." Furthermore, even if conspiracy were alleged, the Court found that the seemingly concerted and almost simultaneous acts of petitioner and co-accused Eraso were more of a spontaneous reaction rather than a result of a common plan to kill. Simultaneity alone is not sufficient to demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose required for collective responsibility, especially when the incident occurred at the spur of the moment. Thus, petitioner could only be held responsible for his own acts or omissions. On the infliction of the fatal wound: The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the metallic fragments found in the victim's fatal wound were particles of a .45 caliber bullet fired from petitioner's pistol. The NBI Ballistician's findings indicated that one fragment was part of a 5.56 mm. jacketed bullet, and he expressed doubt as to whether the other fragments were from the same source. The trial court's conclusion that the fatal wound was caused by a .45 caliber bullet due to its larger entrance wound was deemed devoid of basis. Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side it preponderates, the party with the burden of proof loses. Therefore, the Court could not affirm petitioner's conviction for homicide based on the fatal wound. On the petitioner's liability: The Court sustained the finding that petitioner fired his .45 caliber pistol towards the victim. However, the Court found no evidence of animus interficendi or intent to kill. Prosecution witnesses did not see if petitioner aimed to kill, and intent to kill cannot be automatically inferred from the mere use of a firearm. Absent an intent to kill, the Court held that petitioner should be liable for illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code, as this offense is necessarily included in the crime of unlawful killing. The elements of illegal discharge of firearm are: (1) discharging a firearm against or at another person; and (2) having no intention to kill that person. The penalty for this offense was applied.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution failed to establish conspiracy and the infliction of the fatal wound by the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. While the petitioner fired his firearm, the absence of proven intent to kill warranted a conviction for illegal discharge of firearm, not homicide.