G.R. No. 232131 - Ifurung vs. Carpio-Morales

On December 25, 1967, between 6:00 and 7:00 in the evening at Sto. Rosario, Hagonoy, Bulacan, the accused, Eugenio Crisostomo, was involved in an altercation with Romeo Felipe Geronimo.
Prior to the incident, Crisostomo encountered Geronimo and invited him to have a drink at a friend's place, which Geronimo declined.
Without further warning, Crisostomo rushed toward Geronimo, who was standing near a store with his back turned, and fired a .22 caliber revolver at a distance of one (1) meter.
The bullet entered approximately two (2) inches below Geronimo’s axilla (armpit) and exited at the right side of his chest, one (1) inch medial to the sternum.
As a result, Geronimo fell mortally wounded; bystanders, including friends of both parties, rushed to his aid, transporting him to Reyes Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
The body was subsequently brought back to the victim’s home.

An information for murder was filed by the provincial fiscal in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan against Crisostomo.
The charge alleged that Crisostomo, armed with a firearm, deliberately and unlawfully shot Romeo Geronimo with evident premeditation and treachery, thereby causing his death.
The information specifically referenced factors such as wilful act, felonious intent, and the employment of a lethal weapon in a manner calculated to neutralize any chance of defense.

During the arraignment and trial proceedings, the accused initially pleaded not guilty.
Later, Crisostomo signified his intention to withdraw his plea of not guilty and substitute it with a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, seeking to introduce mitigating circumstances.
The prosecution opposed his plea of guilt for homicide, leading the court to deny the substitution and proceed with the trial on the charge of murder.

On March 28, 1969, the trial court rendered a decision convicting Crisostomo of murder.
The court stated that the killing of Romeo Geronimo, caused by a single gunshot, was committed with evident treachery and without any modifying circumstance.
The sentence imposed was Reclusion Perpetua, coupled with the order to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) and to pay the corresponding costs.

Crisostomo interposed an appeal alleging that the trial court committed multiple errors in its findings and reasoning.
The assigned errors included claims regarding the nature of his admission, the sufficiency of evidence regarding the actual cause of death (particularly in the absence of an autopsy), the finding of treachery, and the exclusion of several mitigating circumstances (intoxication, voluntary surrender, and a plea of guilty to homicide).
Specifically, the appellant argued that his version—stating that a joke turned disastrous when the gun misfired—meant that his actions did not amount to a deliberate killing, and that the absence of an autopsy raised doubts as to the real cause of death.

Whether the trial court erred in finding that the defendant had admitted to killing Romeo Geronimo, rather than limiting its finding to the extent of his admission.
Whether the absence of a formal autopsy impaired the prosecution’s ability to establish the actual cause of death as being solely attributable to a single gunshot wound.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Crisostomo acted with treachery in the commission of the crime.
Whether the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness should have been considered in light of the defendant’s claim of intoxication at the time of the offense.
Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated, given that the accused surrendered to authorities after a period of hiding.
Whether the defendant’s offer to substitute a plea of not guilty with a plea of guilty to homicide (the lesser offense) qualifies as a mitigating circumstance that must be credited.
Whether the defendant is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance based on the presence of two ordinary mitigating circumstances in the absence of any aggravating circumstance.