When a Gunshot Is Not Murder: Conspiracy, Intent, and the Equipoise Rule

The Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Dado v. People offers a clear lesson in criminal procedure: even when two men fire their weapons at the same time and one bullet kills, the law does not automatically treat them as co-conspirators. The case also illustrates how the equipoise rule—when the evidence is evenly balanced—must be resolved in favor of the accused. For lawyers and lay readers alike, the ruling is a primer on two fundamental rights: the right to be informed of the exact charge, and the right to be convicted only upon proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Facts of the Case

On the night of May 25, 1992, a police team in Sultan Kudarat set up an ambush to intercept cattle rustlers. The team included SPO4 Geronimo Dado, armed with a.45 caliber pistol, and CAFGU member Francisco Eraso, carrying an M16 armalite rifle. Around 11 p.m., the team saw a half-naked man approaching. When the man was about five meters away, Eraso fired his rifle. Almost immediately, Dado fired a single shot from his pistol. The victim shouted, “Tay Dolfo, ako ini” (“Tay Dolfo, [this is] me”)—he was Silvestre Balinas, the nephew of a fellow team member, not a rustler. Silvestre died from his wounds.

The post-mortem examination found two gunshot wounds: one on the right arm and a fatal wound on the inner thigh. Three metallic fragments were recovered from the fatal wound. An NBI ballistician identified one fragment as part of a 5.56 mm jacketed bullet—the type fired by an M16 rifle—but he could not say with certainty whether the other two fragments came from the same bullet.

The Issue: Conspiracy and Intent

Dado and Eraso were charged with murder. The trial court convicted both of homicide, ruling that they had acted in conspiracy. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Dado appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy and that the fatal wound was caused by Eraso’s rifle, not his pistol.

The Supreme Court reversed. It held that the information charging Dado did not allege conspiracy. The indictment used the words “attack, assault and shot” but never stated that the accused “conspired,” “confederated,” or acted “in concert.” Under the Constitution, an accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Conspiracy must be alleged in the information, not merely inferred from the facts.

Even if conspiracy had been properly alleged, the Court found it was not proven. Conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a felony. While the agreement can be shown by circumstantial evidence, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the simultaneous firing was a spontaneous reaction to a perceived threat, not the product of a common plan. “Simultaneity alone,” the Court said, “would not be enough to demonstrate the concurrence of will or the unity of action and purpose.”

The Equipoise Rule and the Fatal Wound

Because there was no conspiracy, Dado could only be held liable for his own acts. The critical question became: did Dado’s.45 caliber bullet cause the fatal wound? The trial court assumed that a.45 caliber bullet would create a bigger entrance wound than a 5.56 mm bullet, but no evidence supported that conclusion. The NBI ballistician testified that the one fragment he could identify came from a 5.56 mm bullet—the type fired by Eraso’s rifle. He was uncertain whether the other fragments were from the same bullet.

The Court applied the equipoise rule: when the evidence on a fact is in equipoise, or when the inculpatory facts are capable of two explanations—one consistent with guilt and one with innocence—the party with the burden of proof loses. The prosecution failed to prove that the fatal fragments came from Dado’s pistol. Dado was therefore acquitted of homicide.

Conviction for Illegal Discharge of Firearm

The Court, however, did not set Dado completely free. It found that Dado fired his pistol toward the victim, but there was no evidence he intended to kill. Intent to kill cannot be presumed merely from firing a gun. Without animus interficendi, Dado was guilty of illegal discharge of a firearm under the Revised Penal Code, which punishes shooting at another person without intent to kill.

The Court noted that illegal discharge of firearm is necessarily included in the crime of unlawful killing. Under the rules on criminal procedure, an accused may be convicted of a lesser offense included in the crime charged. Dado was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor to two years and eleven months of prision correccional.

Practical Takeaways

• Conspiracy must be alleged in the information. A prosecutor cannot rely on evidence of joint action alone; the charge sheet must state that the accused acted in conspiracy.
• Simultaneous acts are not proof of conspiracy. Spontaneous, reactive conduct—especially in a chaotic or dangerous situation—does not show the unity of purpose the law requires.
• The equipoise rule protects the accused. When the evidence is evenly balanced on a critical fact, the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Intent to kill must be proved. Firing a gun is not automatically murder or homicide; without intent to kill, the crime may be illegal discharge of a firearm.
• A conviction can be reduced, not just reversed. Even when the prosecution fails to prove a higher crime, the accused may still be convicted of a lesser included offense.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.