EDGAR CRISOSTOMO, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.

Crisostomo versus Sandiganbayan

The Case

This is the case of Crisostomo versus Sandiganbayan, decided by the Supreme Court in April 2005. Edgar Crisostomo, a Senior Police Officer One of the Philippine National Police and a jail guard at the Solano Municipal Jail, was charged with the murder of Renato Suba, a detention prisoner found dead inside his cell. The Information alleged that Crisostomo conspired with several inmates in killing the prisoner, taking advantage of his public position, so that the offense was committed in relation to his office. The case matters for two reasons: it fixes the test for when the Sandiganbayan may take cognizance of a crime that is not by nature an office-related offense, and it shows how the Supreme Court, treating a petition for certiorari as an appeal in a capital case, will open the entire record and acquit where the prosecution fails to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

Crisostomo was charged with murder before the Sandiganbayan, and upon arraignment, assisted by counsel, he pleaded not guilty. Only Crisostomo and his co-accused Mario Calingayan stood trial; the other accused remained at large and the cases against them were archived. The Sandiganbayan rendered its Decision finding Crisostomo and Calingayan guilty of murder and sentencing Crisostomo to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years, five months and eleven days of prision mayor as minimum, to eighteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Crisostomo moved for reconsideration, which the Sandiganbayan denied in its Resolutions of September 2001 and January 2002. Crisostomo then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, still assailing the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the finding of conspiracy. The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, treated the petition as an appeal from the decision of the Sandiganbayan, to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice in a criminal case involving a capital offense.

Facts

On 13 February 1989, Renato Suba was detained at the municipal jail of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, for allegedly hitting the head of another person. The following afternoon, his brother Rizalino visited him and found him in good physical condition, complaining of no bodily pain. Rizalino left at 5:20 in the afternoon. That same evening, at around 9:00, a barangay councilman told Rizalino that the policemen at the municipal jail wanted him to come to the municipal building. Arriving at 9:10, Rizalino saw his brother already dead on the floor outside his cell.

Renato had been detained alone in the third of four cells. Each cell had an iron grill door with a padlock, but the doors were usually left open; the keys were with the jail guard, and no one could pass the common front door without the jail guard's permission. Only one jail guard was on duty at a time, and that guard was Crisostomo. Renato was never brought out of his cell from the time of his detention until his death, and Crisostomo's position was such that he could have heard, if not seen, what was going on inside the cell. The records showed unexplained discrepancies in the list of detainees and the police blotter, and the persons detained with Renato at the time of his death were released without investigation.

The defense presented only Calingayan, who denied killing Renato and testified that he discovered the body hanging from the iron bars of the cell window, tied with a thin blanket, and that Crisostomo then ordered the inmates to bring the body down. The presentation of evidence for Crisostomo was deemed waived for his failure to appear despite notice, and he jumped bail during trial. The Sandiganbayan relied on the autopsy and exhumation reports in rejecting the theory of suicide and convicted both accused on circumstantial evidence.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the crime of murder charged against Crisostomo, a Senior Police Officer One at the time the Information was filed.
• Whether or not, assuming the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction, it committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that Crisostomo conspired in the murder of Renato despite the absence of direct evidence of his participation.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended by Presidential Decree Number 1861, which took effect on 23 March 1983 and governs the crime committed on 14 February 1989, provides:

Section 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: xxx (2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of 6,000 pesos: Provided, however, that offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years or a fine of 6,000 pesos shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

This provision is the sole basis of the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, and the whole jurisdictional question turns on whether the murder was committed by a public officer in relation to his office and whether the Information alleges that connection.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction. Murder carries the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, which is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six years or a fine of 6,000 pesos, and so falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended. The Court acknowledged that murder will never be the main function of any public office and that no public office will ever be a constituent element of murder. But drawing on People versus Montejo, an exception recognized in Sanchez versus Demetriou, the Court ruled that a public officer commits an offense in relation to his office if he perpetrates it while performing, though in an improper or irregular manner, his official functions, and he cannot commit the offense without holding his public office. The test is whether the Information alleges a close or intimate connection between the offense charged and the public office. Here it did: the Information alleged that Crisostomo, a jailer, taking advantage of his public position and committing the offense in relation to his office, conspired with inmates to kill a detention prisoner. The two-fold duty of a jail guard is to insure the safe custody and proper confinement of persons detained in the jail, and Crisostomo could not have conspired with the inmates to murder the prisoner in his cell if he were not the jailer. The Court added that, in any event, Crisostomo waited until the very last stage of the case before questioning jurisdiction, and he was already estopped.

On the second issue, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Treating the petition as an appeal, the Court reviewed the entire case. It found that Renato was killed with deliberate intent: the autopsy and exhumation reports showed a ruptured liver, torn mesentery and torn stomach, causing massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage, injuries too severe to be self-inflicted and inconsistent with the claim of suicide by hanging, the neck injuries not having caused death because the blood vessels of the neck were still intact. The hanging was a simulation of suicide. But intent to kill alone does not convict the jail guard. Since Crisostomo had no direct hand in the killing, the conviction could only stand on conspiracy, and it had to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that his action and inaction were all part of a scheme to murder Renato. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish this, and acquitted both Crisostomo and Calingayan.

Doctrine

First, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over other offenses or felonies committed by public officers in relation to their office where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six years or a fine of 6,000 pesos. Second, for a crime that is not by nature office-related, such as murder, jurisdiction attaches when the public officer perpetrates the offense while performing, though improperly or irregularly, his official functions, and he could not have committed it without holding his public office. Third, the jurisdictional test is whether the Information alleges a close or intimate connection between the offense charged and the public office; a bare conclusion of law will not do where the victim is not shown to be under the officer's custody, but where the victim is a detention prisoner and the accused is the jail guard, the allegation suffices. Fourth, a petition for certiorari in a criminal case involving a capital offense may be treated as an appeal, which opens the entire case for review and allows the Court to correct errors not assigned. Fifth, conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt as to each accused; proof of the killing and of intent to kill does not by itself prove the jail guard's complicity.

Disposition

The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but acquitted Edgar Crisostomo and Mario Calingayan on the ground of reasonable doubt, reversing their conviction for murder.

Remember This

Memorize the Montejo test as adopted here: a public officer commits an offense in relation to his office when he perpetrates it while performing, though improperly or irregularly, his official functions, and he could not commit it without holding his public office, and the Information must allege that close connection. Examiners use this case to test Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over murder and homicide by public officers, and to test whether a Rule 65 petition in a capital criminal case may be treated as an appeal that opens the whole record.