G.R. No. L-32243 April 15, 1988
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUGENIO CRISOSTOMO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On December 25, 1967, in Hagonoy, Bulacan, accused-appellant Eugenio Crisostomo invited Romeo Geronimo for a drink. Upon Romeo’s refusal, Crisostomo, who was behind Romeo, shot him at close range with a .22 caliber revolver. The bullet inflicted a fatal through-and-through chest wound. Bystanders brought Romeo to a hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. An information for murder, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, was filed against Crisostomo. During trial, after initially pleading not guilty, Crisostomo attempted to withdraw his plea and plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, but the prosecution did not consent, leading the court to deny the motion.
The trial court convicted Crisostomo of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity. On appeal, Crisostomo raised multiple errors, contesting the admission of his guilt, the proof of the cause of death, the finding of treachery, and the court’s failure to appreciate mitigating circumstances like drunkenness, voluntary surrender, and his offer to plead guilty to homicide.

ISSUE

The core issues are whether the killing was attended by treachery to qualify it as murder, and whether the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, drunkenness, or an offer to plead guilty should be appreciated in favor of the appellant.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found treachery (alevosia) to be present. The attack was sudden, from behind, at close range, and employed a deadly weapon, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. This manner of execution directly and specifically insured the accomplishment of the crime without risk to the assailant.
Regarding mitigating circumstances, the Court appreciated voluntary surrender. The appellant voluntarily presented himself to the police two days after the incident, which was sufficiently established. However, the Court rejected the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness. For drunkenness to mitigate, it must not be habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. The evidence showed the appellant was drinking earlier, but it did not prove he was so intoxicated as to lose his reason or discernment at the precise moment of the shooting. The offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense was correctly not considered mitigating, as it was made only after the prosecution had already presented evidence, not spontaneously prior to such presentation.
Consequently, with one mitigating circumstance (voluntary surrender) and no aggravating circumstances, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor as minimum to Seventeen (17) Years, Four (4) Months, and One (1) Day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00. The decision was affirmed with these modifications.