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 Summary (G.R. No. 152398)

Key Dates

Offense: February 14, 1989
Information filed: October 19, 1993
Sandiganbayan decision: November 28, 2000
Motion for reconsideration denied: January 14, 2002
Supreme Court decision: April 14, 2005

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution (effective at time of Supreme Court decision).
Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by PD 1861 (jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan).
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 65 for certiorari).
Revised Rules of Evidence (Rule 133 on circumstantial evidence).
Revised Penal Code (Articles on murder penalty and Indeterminate Sentence Law).

Charge

Crisostomo was charged with murder under an Information alleging that, taking advantage of his position as jail guard, he conspired with six inmates to inflict fatal injuries on Renato Suba inside his cell, then staged the death as suicide.

Arraignment and Plea

On December 15, 1993, Crisostomo pleaded not guilty. Trial proceeded with the State presenting witnesses, then Calingayan testifying for the defense.

Prosecution’s Case

• Witnesses established Suba’s good health before detention and absence of external access to the cells during relevant times.
• Autopsy and exhumation reports showed massive internal injuries (ruptured liver, torn mesentery, torn stomach) incompatible with hanging or self-infliction.
• NBI report concluded multiple assailants inflicted deliberate fatal injuries and that only the jail guard held keys to cell access.
• Discrepancies arose between detainee lists and police blotter regarding number of prisoners.

Defense’s Case

• Calingayan denied involvement and testified that all cell doors were habitually left open by inmates, not by the guard.
• He last saw Suba alive around 6 p.m., discovered Suba’s body hanging from a thin blanket, and denied any fresh admissions to the jail.
• He described cell layout: four cells in a row, separated by cement partitions, common door locked by guard, comfort room in a separate open cell.

Sandiganbayan Decision

The Sandiganbayan found jurisdiction proper under PD 1606, convicted Crisostomo and Calingayan of murder, and sentenced Crisostomo to prision mayor (12 y 5 m 11 d) as minimum to reclusion temporal (18 y 8 m 1 d) as maximum. Warrants issued for other at-large co-accused.

Issues Raised

  1. Whether Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over Crisostomo, a police officer charged with murder.
  2. Whether guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite no direct evidence of Crisostomo’s participation.

Jurisdictional Analysis

• Under PD 1606, sec. 4(a)(2), Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses by public officers in relation to their office punishable by over six years.
• The Information alleged killing of a detention prisoner—an act intimately connected to the jailer’s duties to safeguard inmates.
• People v. Montejo exception recognizes that a public officer’s criminal act committed while performing the functions of office, even improperly, is within Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.
• The Supreme Court held the charge sufficiently alleged nexus with official duties, and in any event the Ombudsman’s resolution supported transfer under Republic v. Asuncion procedures.

Lack of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

• No direct evidence tied Crisostomo to the assault.
• Circumstantial evidence must (a) consist of multiple proven facts, (b) permit only one inference, (c) establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• The autopsy proved deliberate homicide, but did not link Crisostomo’s actions or omissions to a conspiracy or the assault itself.

Conspiracy Requirement Not Met

• Conspiracy demands proof of a prior common design by clear and convincing evidence. Joint action alone is insufficient.
• Three circumstances cited—control of keys, guard’s theoretical ability to hear/see the assault, record discrepancies—did not exclude alternative explanations (negligence or inmate-initiated violence).
• Cell layout, habitual open doors, poor lighting and partitions made guard’s actual observation implausible.
• Discrepancies in lists without explanation do not prove pa




...continue reading

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.