People vs. Crisostomo, 160 SCRA 47, No.
L-32243 April 15, 1988
FACTS:
On Christmas day, 1967, between 6:00 and 7:00 o' clock in the evening at Sto. Rosario, Hagonoy, Bulacan, while
Eugenio Crisostomo was passing near the house of Romeo Geronimo, he met the latter and invited him to have a drink
in the place of a friend. Romeo declined the offer. Suddenly Eugenio rushed towards Romeo who was then standing
near a store facing the street with his back towards Eugenio and shot him with a .22 caliber revolver at a distance of one
(1) meter. Romeo fell to the ground mortally wounded while Eugenio ran away. By-standers who were near the place
came to the aid of the fallen victim and brought him to the Reyes Hospital at the Poblacion of Hagonoy where the doctor
pronounced the victim dead upon arrival.
An information for murder was filed by the provincial fiscal in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan against
Eugenio Crisostomo. During arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty and again during trial, the accused
signified his intention to withdraw his plea of not guilty to the charge of murder and to substitute it with a plea of
guilty to a lesser charge of homicide and prayed that he be allowed to prove the mitigating circumstances. The same
plea was made by the accused after the prosecution had rested its case, but the fiscal did not agree. Thus, the court
denied the petition. A decision was rendered by the trial court convicting the accused of the offense charged.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the defendant-appellant admitted having killed Romeo Geronimo.
2. Whether or not there was actual evidence presented as to the cause of death of Romeo Geronimo, there having
been no autopsy performed.
RULINGS:
1. No doubt from the said version of the appellant he effectively admitted having shot the victim Romeo
Geronimo. In fact he fled from the scene of the crime upon realizing the gravity of what he had committed. It is
clear that it was that single shot that felled the victim which was the immediate cause of his death.
Testifying in his defense the appellant claims that at the time of the incident when he saw the victim he played a
joke on him by drawing his gun from his waist and pointing the same to the victim but the gun suddenly went
off, its bullet hitting the victim. Taken by surprise he fled.
2. The death certificate and the notes issued by Dr. Santos after his external examination of the body of the victim
establish the cause of death of the deceased contrary to the contention of the appellant. In this jurisdiction such
death certificate and notes issued by said municipal health officer in the regular performance of his duty are
prima facie evidence of the cause of death of the victim.
Dr. Santos, who was then the municipal health officer of Hagonoy, Bulacan, categorically testified that the cause
of death of the deceased was a through and through gunshot wound which was caused by a bullet. Although he
may not be an expert witness, as a physician and health officer he is certainly qualified to give an opinion as to
the cause of death of the victim. He externally examined the body of the deceased on the same night of the
incident, and found no other sign of external violence except the shot wound. Under such circumstances, one
need not be an expert to render an opinion that the said gunshot wound was the cause of death of the victim.
