People v. Crisostomo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On Christmas day, December 25, 1967, in Sto. Rosario, Hagonoy, Bulacan, Eugenio Crisostomo encountered Romeo Geronimo. Crisostomo invited Geronimo for a drink, which Geronimo declined. Crisostomo then shot Geronimo with a .22 caliber revolver at close range (one meter). The bullet entered below the left armpit and exited on the right side of the chest, causing fatal injuries. Geronimo fell and was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital. Crisostomo fled the scene. Procedural History: An information for murder was filed against Crisostomo. During the trial, Crisostomo offered to withdraw his plea of not guilty to murder and substitute it with a plea of guilty to homicide, praying to prove mitigating circumstances. This plea was denied by the court as the prosecution did not agree. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan rendered a decision on March 28, 1969, finding Crisostomo guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and costs. The Petition: Crisostomo appealed the CFI decision, assigning several errors, including the court's findings on his admission of killing, the evidence on the cause of death, the presence of treachery, and the denial of mitigating circumstances such as drunkenness, voluntary surrender, and the offer to plead guilty to homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellant admitted having killed the victim. Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the cause of death despite the absence of an autopsy. Whether the appellant acted with treachery in the commission of the offense. Whether the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness. Whether the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Whether the appellant's offer to plead guilty to homicide should be considered a mitigating circumstance. Whether the appellant is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of the presence of two ordinary mitigating circumstances without aggravating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court with modifications as to the penalty and indemnity. The accused-appellant was found guilty of murder, and his penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence. The indemnity for the death of the victim was increased.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admission of killing: The appellant's own testimony, where he claimed the shooting was an accident due to playing a joke with a gun that suddenly went off, constituted an admission of having shot the victim. His subsequent flight from the scene further supported this admission, as it indicated an awareness of the gravity of his actions. The court found that the single shot fired by the appellant was the immediate cause of the victim's death. On the cause of death: The Court held that the prosecution sufficiently established the cause of death. Dr. Juan Santos, the municipal health officer, testified that the cause of death was a through-and-through gunshot wound. Although not an expert witness in the strictest sense, his medical background and his external examination of the body, which revealed no other signs of violence, qualified him to give an opinion on the cause of death. Furthermore, the death certificate and the notes issued by Dr. Santos after his examination are considered prima facie evidence of the cause of death. The appellant's speculation that the victim may have been shot twice was refuted by the doctor's detailed explanation of the entry and exit wounds and the bullet's trajectory. On treachery: The Court found that treachery was present. While the suddenness of the attack alone is not sufficient, the circumstances indicated that the mode of attack was consciously adopted to insure its execution without risk to the offender. The appellant had a previous altercation with the victim, invited him for a drink, and then shot him while the victim's back was turned. The use of a firearm at close range, aimed at a vital spot, and the victim being unarmed, all contributed to the finding of treachery, as it tended directly and specially to insure the commission of the offense without risk to the appellant. On drunkenness: The claim of drunkenness as a mitigating circumstance was rejected. The appellant's allegations were self-serving and uncorroborated. He admitted to only feeling dizzy and was on his way to another drinking spree, indicating he was not sufficiently intoxicated to impair his mental capacity. His detailed recollection of events and his actions after the shooting (fleeing, hiding, surrendering) demonstrated that his mental faculties were not impaired. On voluntary surrender: The Court granted the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The appellant, after hiding for ten days, voluntarily surrendered to the authorities upon the advice of his parents. This surrender met the requisites: he was not arrested, he surrendered to a person in authority, and the surrender was voluntary. On the offer to plead guilty to homicide: The appellant's offer to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide was made after the prosecution had presented some evidence and again after the prosecution rested its case. The requisites for this mitigating circumstance include a spontaneous confession of guilt made before the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. Since this condition was not met, the offer was not considered mitigating. On privileged mitigating circumstance: Consequently, the claim for a privileged mitigating circumstance based on the presence of two ordinary mitigating circumstances was denied, as the offer to plead guilty was not accepted as mitigating, and only voluntary surrender was granted.
Main Doctrine
The killing was qualified by treachery, constituting murder. While voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance, the offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense after the prosecution had presented evidence is not mitigating. The cause of death can be established by external examination and a death certificate, even without an autopsy, especially when corroborated by eyewitnesses.