The Supreme Court ruled in Geronimo Dado v. People that when a person discharges a firearm and injures another but without the intent to kill, they cannot be convicted of homicide. Instead, they may be held liable for illegal discharge of a firearm. This distinction hinges on the prosecution’s ability to prove animus interficendi, or the intent to kill. This decision highlights the importance of proving intent in criminal cases involving firearms, protecting individuals from excessive punishment when the intent to take a life is not established beyond reasonable doubt.
When Does Firing a Gun Equate to Homicide? The Case of the Mistaken Target
The case revolves around an incident on the night of May 25, 1992, in Sultan Kudarat. Police officers and CAFGU members, including Geronimo Dado and Francisco Eraso, were tasked with intercepting cattle rustlers. While waiting, they encountered Silvestre Balinas, who they mistakenly identified as a rustler. Shots were fired, and Balinas died from his wounds. Initially, Dado and Eraso were charged with murder, but the trial court convicted them of homicide, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Dado appealed, questioning whether conspiracy was proven and whether the evidence supported a conviction for homicide.
A critical point in the Supreme Court’s analysis was the element of conspiracy. The Court emphasized that conspiracy must be explicitly alleged in the information with “appropriate language”. The information against Dado did not contain words like “conspired,” “confederated,” or “acting in concert,” failing to meet this requirement. The Supreme Court cited Garcia v. Court of Appeals, stating that the language used by the prosecution contained “no reference to conspiracy which must be alleged, not merely inferred from the information.” Because of this, Dado could only be held accountable for his own actions, not those of Eraso.
Moreover, the Court found that even if conspiracy had been properly alleged, the evidence did not sufficiently prove it. Conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit a felony, but the evidence suggested the actions of Dado and Eraso were a spontaneous reaction rather than a planned attack. The Supreme Court held that “neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient proof of conspiracy.” This meant that Dado’s liability had to be assessed independently of Eraso’s actions. Without a clear demonstration of a shared intent or plan, the element of conspiracy could not be established.
The Court then focused on whether Dado’s actions directly caused Balinas’s death. The fatal wound was determined to have been caused by a 5.56 mm bullet, based on the ballistic examination of metallic fragments recovered from the victim. Elmer Nelson D. Piedad, an NBI Ballistician, testified that “SB-1 is part of a copper jacket of 5.56 mm.” Dado, however, was armed with a .45 caliber pistol. The prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the fragments found in the fatal wound originated from Dado’s firearm. The Court applied the equipoise rule, noting that the doubt should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, Dado.
Even though Dado was acquitted of homicide, the Court found him liable for illegal discharge of a firearm. The elements of this crime are: (1) that the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person; and (2) that the offender has no intention to kill that person. The Court found that Dado had fired his weapon in the direction of the victim, but the prosecution had not proven animus interficendi. The Court stated that “intent to kill cannot be automatically drawn from the mere fact that the use of firearms is dangerous to life.” Absent this intent, the appropriate charge was illegal discharge of a firearm, as defined under Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code:
Art. 254. Discharge of firearms. — Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, unless the facts of the case are such that the act can be held to constitute frustrated or attempted parricide, murder, homicide or any other crime for which a higher penalty is prescribed by any of the articles of this Code.
The Court emphasized that while the information charged Dado with murder, a conviction for illegal discharge of firearm was permissible because the latter offense is necessarily included in the former. This principle is enshrined in Rule 120, Section 4, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals’ decision, acquitting Dado of homicide but convicting him of illegal discharge of a firearm, with a corresponding penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum to two (2) years and eleven (11) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Geronimo Dado could be convicted of homicide when the fatal wound was likely caused by a different firearm than the one he used, and whether conspiracy was adequately proven. The court also considered if illegal discharge of a firearm was a more appropriate charge. |
| What is needed to prove conspiracy? | To prove conspiracy, the prosecution must show that two or more people agreed to commit a felony and decided to commit it. This requires explicit language in the information and convincing evidence of a common plan. |
| What is animus interficendi? | Animus interficendi is the intent to kill. In cases involving firearms, the prosecution must prove this intent beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction for homicide or murder. |
| What is the equipoise rule? | The equipoise rule states that when the evidence on an issue of fact is equally balanced or doubtful, the party with the burden of proof loses. In this case, doubt about the origin of the fatal bullet benefited the accused. |
| What is illegal discharge of a firearm? | Illegal discharge of a firearm occurs when a person shoots at another with a firearm without the intent to kill. It is punishable under Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. |
| Can someone be convicted of a lesser offense if charged with a greater one? | Yes, under Rule 120, Section 4, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, if the offense proved is necessarily included in the offense charged, the accused can be convicted of the offense proved. This applied to Dado, who was charged with murder but convicted of illegal discharge of a firearm. |
| What was the final ruling in this case? | The Supreme Court acquitted Geronimo Dado of homicide but convicted him of illegal discharge of a firearm. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and eleven (11) months of prision correccional, as maximum. |
| Why wasn’t Dado held responsible for the wound on the victim’s arm? | Dado wasn’t held responsible for the arm wound because there was no conclusive evidence proving beyond moral certainty that the bullet causing that wound came from his firearm. The prosecution failed to establish a direct link. |
This case underscores the crucial importance of evidence and intent in criminal proceedings involving firearms. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling provides clarity on the distinction between homicide and illegal discharge of a firearm, ensuring that individuals are appropriately charged based on the evidence presented.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: GERONIMO DADO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 131421, November 18, 2002