Title
Supreme Court
Crisostomo vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 152398
Decision Date
Apr 14, 2005
A jail guard and inmate were acquitted of murder charges due to insufficient evidence proving conspiracy in the death of a detainee.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 169055)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Case Background
    • Petitioner: SPO1 Edgar T. Crisostomo, jail guard and PNP member, charged with murder.
    • Respondent: Sandiganbayan Second Division, which convicted Crisostomo and co-accused Mario B. Calingayan of murder on 28 November 2000.
  • Incident and Criminal Charge
    • On 13–14 February 1989, inmate Renato Suba was detained at Solano Municipal Jail for allegedly hitting another person.
    • Renato was last seen alive by his brother at 5:00 p.m. on 14 February 1989 in good health; his body was found dead, bearing extensive internal organ injuries, between 9:00–10:00 p.m. hanging from cell window bars.
    • Information dated 19 October 1993 charged Crisostomo and six inmates with conspiracy and murder “in relation to [Crisostomo’s] office,” alleging treachery and use of means to insure impunity.
  • Trial and Evidence
    • Prosecution evidence:
      • Autopsy and exhumation reports indicated massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage from ruptured liver, torn mesentery and stomach—injuries incompatible with suicide.
      • NBI and witness testimonies described jail layout (one guard, locked cell doors under guard’s key control, open cell grill doors) and unexplained discrepancies in detainee rosters and blotter.
    • Defense evidence (solely by co-accused Calingayan):
      • Denial of killing; asserted suicide theory based on blanket found around neck.
      • Described jail structure and absence of proof that Crisostomo facilitated entry or observed any assault.
    • Sandiganbayan’s decision:
      • Found circumstantial evidence of conspiracy—guard’s exclusive custody of keys, opportunity to hear/see inside cells, detainee roster discrepancies, and co-accused silence.
      • Convicted both and imposed indeterminate sentence on Crisostomo (12 years 5 months 11 days to 18 years 8 months 1 day).
  • Appeal to the Supreme Court
    • Crisostomo filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition, challenging jurisdiction and sufficiency of evidence.
    • Supreme Court treated petition as appeal to prevent miscarriage of justice in a capital case.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction
    • Whether Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over murder committed by a public officer not enumerated in PD 1606, Sec. 4.
    • Whether the Information sufficiently alleged the offense was committed “in relation to [Crisostomo’s] office.”
  • Sufficiency of Evidence
    • Whether prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Renato’s death was deliberate murder, not suicide.
    • Whether there was clear and convincing proof of conspiracy and Crisostomo’s participation therein.
  • Procedural Due Process
    • Whether the Sandiganbayan abused discretion by deeming Crisostomo to have waived presentation of evidence after he missed one hearing and ordering bond forfeiture.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.