Title
Dado vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 131421
Decision Date
Nov 18, 2002
A police team mistakenly shot a man during an anti-cattle rustling operation. Ballistic evidence showed the fatal wound was from an M16, not the petitioner's .45 pistol. The Supreme Court acquitted him of homicide but convicted him of illegal firearm discharge due to lack of conspiracy and intent to kill.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 131421)

Petition and Applicable Law

Decision Date: November 18, 2002 (governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution)
Charge: Murder under Article 248, Revised Penal Code, with premeditation, treachery, and use of superior strength
Relief Sought: Review of trial court and Court of Appeals’ convictions for homicide

Charge and Arraignment

Information filed August 24, 1993 alleged that petitioner and Eraso, armed with firearms and with intent to kill, shot Silvestre Balinas causing instantaneous death. Both pleaded not guilty at arraignment on September 22, 1992.

Factual Antecedents

A police–CAFGU team, including petitioner (armed with a .45 pistol) and Eraso (armed with an M16 rifle), lay in wait for suspected cattle rustlers. At about 11:00 p.m., they saw a half-naked man approach. Eraso fired first; petitioner immediately fired a single shot. The victim fell, cried out, and died from gunshot wounds; he was later identified as Silvestre Balinas.

Medical and Ballistic Findings

Dr. Rhodora Antenor’s post-mortem revealed two wounds: one superficial arm wound and a fatal mid-inner thigh wound with multiple metallic fragments. NBI Ballistician Elmer Piedad identified one fragment as part of a 5.56 mm jacketed bullet (M16 ammunition). Two additional fragments could not be conclusively linked to petitioner’s .45 caliber pistol.

Petitioner’s Account

Petitioner testified he mistook the rapid rifle bursts behind him for enemy fire and, without intent to kill, fired his .45 pistol eastward to demoralize the supposed enemy. He later learned someone had been shot accidentally.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Rulings

The Regional Trial Court (April 22, 1994) and the Court of Appeals (June 26, 1997) convicted both defendants of homicide, applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and imposed prison sentences (8 years + 1 day to 14 years 8 months + 1 day). The CA affirmed despite petitioner’s denial of conspiracy. Eraso’s separate petition was denied and became final.

Issue on Conspiracy

Both lower courts held that petitioner and Eraso conspired to kill, making each act attributable to both. The Supreme Court found no allegation of conspiracy in the Information—neither the terms “conspired,” “confederated,” nor equivalent appeared. A conspiracy must be specifically alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt; mere simultaneity or concerted reaction does not suffice.

Issue on Ballistic Evidence and Individual Liability

The trial court’s inference that petitioner’s .45 caliber bullet inflicted the fatal wound was unsupported. Scientific examination showed the fatal fragments originated from a 5.56 mm round, not a .45. Under the equipoise rule, unresolved doubt on an element fatal to guilt mandates acquittal of that charge.

Reduction of Offense to Illegal

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.