The Commission on Capital Cases was not funded in the FY 2011-2012 General Appropriations Act, and the Commission ceased operations on June 30, 2011. This site and the Commission website are being retained to provide access to historical materials.

The Registry Attorneys will be continued by the Justice Administration Commission.

These actions are effective July 1, 2011.

Disclaimer: The Commission on Capital Cases receives this information from a variety of sources. The site will be updated consistently as information is received and will be audited bi-annually. We make every attempt to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, the information should be verified by the applicable court prior to using it for legal or statistical purposes.


Last NameFirst NamePictureDC NumberAgencyCase Summary
JaramilloAnibal 077098 Case Summary

Last Action

DateCourtCase NumberLast Action
7/8/1982  Released

Current Attorney


Last Updated

2008-01-09 11:43:13.0

Case Summary
Direct Links

The Commission on Capital Cases has complied this report using a varietyof sources


AKA: Jose Bernardo Pineda

DC # 077098

DOB:  02/03/58 


Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Case # 80-24540

Sentencing Judge:  The Honorable Ellen Morphonios 

Attorney, Criminal Trial:  Terrance McWilliams, Esq. 

Attorney, Direct Appeal:  Louis Casuso, Esq. & EdwardMcHale, Esq. 


Date of Offense:         11/30/80    

Date of Sentence:       04/08/81     


Circumstances of Offense:


Anibal Jaramillo was convicted and sentenced to death forthe murders of Gilberto Caicedo Reyes and Candelaria Castellanos Marin.


In the early morning hours of 12/02/80, the bodies ofGilberto Caicedo Reyes and Candelaria Castellanos Marin were discovered in ahome in South Dade County.  Both had been bound, gagged, and killed executionstyle with three shots to the head.  Medical examiners estimated the murderstook place between 2:00 a.m. on November 30th and 2:00 a.m. onDecember 1st.  All six of the shots were believed to have been fromthe same gun, probably a MAC-10 submachine gun with a silencer.


Marin’s hands had been bound by handcuffs, upon which,medical examiners identified fingerprints that did not belong to Jaramillo.   Acoil of hemp cord was found next to Reyes’ body.  It was apparent that aportion of the cord had been severed by a knife and used to bind his handsbehind his back.  Packaging for a knife was found next to Reyes’ body and theknife itself was found on the dining room table, both of which bore Jaramillo’sprints.  The house had been ransacked in an apparent search for valuables;however, among the numerous latent fingerprints that police discovered, none ofthem belonged to Jaramillo.


At trial, Jaramillo testified that he had gone over to theReyes’ residence on November 29th to help Edison Caicedo, Reyes’nephew, clean out the garage.  Jaramillo wanted to break down several boxes inorder to make them more stackable, so he asked Caicedo for a knife.  Caicedodirected Jaramillo to a bag on the dining room table that contained a newknife.  Jaramillo stated that he unwrapped the knife, leaving the wrapper onthe table, and once finished using it in the garage, returned the knife to thetable.  Jaramillo reported that he left the Reyes’ residence at approximately10:00 p.m. that night.


A neighbor testified that he heard a series of loud noises,which sounded like fighting, come from the house around 7:00 p.m. on November30th.  Mr. Breslaw, who lived next door, reported that he heard whatsounded like furniture being pushed around, a scream, and what could have beena gunshot.  When police arrived on the scene during the early morning hours of12/02/80, they met Caicedo, who was accompanied by two attorneys.  Since helived with his uncle Gilberto Caicedo Reyes, Edison Caicedo’s fingerprints werefound all over the house, including the ransacked areas.  Caicedo did nottestify at Jaramillo’s trial, as his whereabouts were unknown at the time.


Jaramillo was convicted of two counts of First-Degree Murderand sentenced to death.


Additional Information:


Jaramillo was arrested on 12/14/80 for allegedly stealingand attempting to use another’s passport.    On 04/14/81, Jaramillo pled guiltyas charged and was sentenced to 2.5 years imprisonment to run concurrent withhis death sentences (CC # 80-24540).


Jaramillo was again arrested on 03/13/83 for illegalpossession of a firearm and for receiving ransom money from a kidnapping.  Hewas convicted and sentenced to four years and two years imprisonmentrespectively.


Trial Summary:


12/16/80          The defendant was arrested.

01/07/81          Defendant indicted on the following:

                                    Count I:           First-DegreeMurder

                                    Count II:         First-DegreeMurder

                                    Count III:        Use ofa Firearm in the Commission of a Felony

04/08/81          Thejury found Jaramillo guilty of two counts of First-Degree Murder, as charged inthe indictment.  He was acquitted on Count III:  Use of a Firearm in theCommission of a Felony.

04/08/81          Uponadvisory sentencing, a majority of the jury voted that Jaramillo be sentencedto life imprisonment.

04/08/81          Thedefendant was sentenced as followed:

                                    CountI:           First-Degree Murder – Death

                                    CountII:         First-Degree Murder – Death

07/08/82          TheFlorida Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded to the trial courtwith instructions to discharge Jaramillo.


Appellate Summary:


Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC # 60,570

417 So. 2d 257


05/04/81          Appeal filed.

07/08/82          FSCreversed the convictions and remanded to the trial court with instructions todischarge Jaramillo.




On 05/04/81, Jaramillo filed a Direct Appeal in the FloridaSupreme Court.  In that appeal, he argued that the State’s case was basedentirely on circumstantial evidence, and that such evidence was insufficient tosupport his convictions of First-Degree Murder.  Applying the standard setforth in McArthur v. Nourse, the high court noted, “where the only proofof guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strong the evidence may suggestguilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistentwith any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”  The only evidence offered by theState to show Jaramillo’s guilt was the presence of his fingerprints on severalitems at the murder scene.  Jaramillo, however, had a reasonable explanation asto how his fingerprints got on the knife and the wrapper in question.  Sinceforensic experts could not determine that the fingerprints were left at thetime of the murder and not some time before, the State’s evidence was notinconsistent with Jaramillo’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence.  As such, theFlorida Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded to the trial courtwith instructions to discharge Jaramillo.


Law Enforcement/ Prosecution Statements:


Al Singleton of the Dade County Sheriff’s Office providedthe following comment on the Jaramillo case:


Through several informants, it waslearned that Jaramillo was an `enforcer’      (hit man) from Colombia.  He was implicated in two separate homicides in 1980, the first of which involvedthe shooting death of a woman in November 1980.  Although he was charged withthis murder, he was never convicted.  The second murder involved the executionstyle killing of a couple in South Dade County.  Jaramillo’s fingerprints werefound inside the house on the packaging of rope/cord.  That cord was used tobind the victims’ hands behind their backs.  Jaramillo was found guilty of themurders, but the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was insufficientto support his convictions and ordered an acquittal.  It is the opinion of theDade County Sheriff’s Office that Anibal Jaramillo was guilty of bothhomicides.



The State Attorneys Office for the Eleventh Circuit providedthe following statement regarding Jaramillo’s case:


It is an old case and the originalprosecutors are not with the office any longer, but [our] understanding is thatJaramillo, although the evidence was deemed to be sufficient by a jury and ajudge to convict him of two counts of first-degree murder (and to sentence himto death), the FSC thought that his fingerprints found on a knife near the victim’sbodies and on a grocery bag in the house were insufficient, as the defendantgave a story that despite the State’s attempt to rebut it, was deemedinsufficient to refute it.  See 417 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1982).  Although thevictims had been shot, one of the victims had their hands tied behind theirback with a cord.  The coil of the cord was found next to the packaging of aknife (the one in which the defendant’s fingerprints were on).  The State hadalso prosecuted a codefendant, Jaime Savino, whose fingerprints were found onthe handcuffs used to bind one of the victims.  The trial court directed averdict against the State saying that was insufficient.  It is our Office’sposition that two men (one being Jaramillo) got away with a double homicide.




Louis Casuso, Jaramillo’s defense attorney, commented:

“I thought the Court made the correct decision.  The onlyevidence against Jaramillo was that his fingerprints were found at the scene;however, there was a reasonable explanation as to why they were there.”


Current Status:


Anibal Jaramillo was deported to Colombia subsequent to hisrelease and was murdered there.



Report Date:   03/07/02          ew

Approved:       03/12/02          ws

Updated:         05/29/02          ew