View full case

GERONIMO DADO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

In this case, the petitioner, SPO4 Geronimo Dado, was part of a team conducting anti-cattle rustling operations in Bukidnon. During the incident, the petitioner and his co-accused positioned themselves underneath a big hole in the mountains. When they noticed someone approaching, the co-accused fired his M16 armalite rifle, followed by the petitioner firing a single shot from his .45 caliber pistol. It was later discovered that the victim, Silvestre Balinas, had sustained gunshot wounds and died as a result. The post-mortem examination revealed specific details about the wounds and the recovery of metallic slugs from the victim's body. The ballistics expert determined that the fragments were from a 5.56mm caliber bullet. The petitioner claimed that he was armed with a .45 caliber pistol on that night.

During the trial, the petitioner testified that when he heard rapid gun bursts, he immediately fired a single shot eastward. He only realized that someone was shot when his co-accused later asked for forgiveness. The petitioner admitted that he knew the gun bursts came from behind him, but his broken arm made it difficult for him to turn towards the source. Despite his claims of acting alone, both the trial court and the appellate court found the petitioner and his co-accused guilty of homicide. The petitioner filed a petition arguing that he acted alone and that the prosecution failed to allege conspiracy in the information.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the information sufficiently alleged conspiracy

  2. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy

  3. Whether the metallic fragments found in the victim's wound are parts of a .45 caliber bullet fired from petitioner's .45 caliber pistol.

  4. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the intent to kill on the part of the petitioner.

  5. Whether the petitioner can be convicted of illegal discharge of firearm instead of murder.

  6. Whether the penalty for illegal discharge of firearm is applicable in this case.

RULING:

  1. The information filed against the petitioner failed to allege the circumstance of conspiracy. The language used in charging the petitioner does not contain any reference to conspiracy. Absent particular statements in the charge sheet concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy, the petitioner cannot be held accountable for the acts or omissions of his co-accused.

  2. Even if conspiracy was sufficiently alleged in the information, the same cannot be considered against the petitioner. The seemingly concerted and almost simultaneous acts of the petitioner and his co-accused were more of a spontaneous reaction rather than the result of a common plan to kill the victim. Simultaneity alone is not enough to demonstrate the concurrence of will or the unity of action and purpose that could be the basis for collective responsibility. In conspiracy, there should be a conscious design to perpetrate the offense.

  3. The doubt regarding whether the metallic fragments are indeed parts of a .45 caliber bullet must be resolved in favor of the petitioner. The prosecution failed to establish beyond moral certainty that the fragments came from petitioner's .45 caliber pistol. As a result, petitioner cannot be held liable for the crime of homicide.

  4. There is no evidence to prove that petitioner had the intent to kill the victim. The prosecution witnesses did not observe whether petitioner aimed to kill the victim, and intent to kill cannot be automatically inferred from the fact that firearms are dangerous. Therefore, petitioner should be held liable for the crime of illegal discharge of a firearm under Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code.

  5. The petitioner can be convicted of illegal discharge of firearm instead of murder, as this offense is necessarily included in the crime of unlawful killing of a person. Under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, when there is a variance between the offense charged in the information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

  6. The penalty for illegal discharge of firearm is applicable in this case. Pursuant to Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code, illegal discharge of firearm is punishable with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the petitioner should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and eleven (11) months of prision correccional, as maximum.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Conspiracy must be alleged in the information in "appropriate language" and must not merely be inferred.

  • Conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons concerning the commission of a felony.

  • Joint or simultaneous action is not sufficient proof of conspiracy.

  • Conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Equipoise Rule - If the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party with the burden of proof loses.

  • Quantum of Proof - The needed quantum of proof to convict an accused is lacking if the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and does not suffice to produce a conviction.

  • Intent to Kill - The intent to kill must be established with the same degree of certainty as the other elements of the crime. It cannot be inferred in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt.

  • A variance between the offense charged in the information and that proved is allowed as long as the offense charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved.

  • The penalty for illegal discharge of firearm is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, as provided in Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code.