Esteban v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.

146646-49, March 11, 2005

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

Facts:
This case involves a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging
Sandiganbayan’s decisions dated December 18, 2000, and January 11, 2001,
in Criminal Cases Nos. 24703-04. The petition arises from a complaint filed
by Ana May V. Simbajon against Judge Rogelio M. Esteban, accusing him of
acts of lasciviousness. According to Simbajon, she was a casual employee at
the City Government of Cabanatuan City and was subjected to unwelcome
advances by Judge Esteban, who allegedly demanded her presence in his
office for a kiss as a condition for her job application. Despite her rejection,
Esteban allegedly kissed her without consent. An Information were filed
against Judge Esteban for acts of lasciviousness and violation of the Anti-
Sexual Harassment Law.

The Sandiganbayan initially denied Esteban's motion to quash the

Information, stating that the acts were committed in relation to his office.
Esteban sought reconsideration, but the Sandiganbayan maintained its
decision. The certiorari petition challenges Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over
the crimes charged. The petitioner argues that the alleged acts were not
committed in connection with his role as a judge, and being a public official
is not an essential element of the charged crimes. Conversely, the
Ombudsman, represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor, asserts that
the Amended Informations suggest a close link between the petitioner's
official functions as a judge and the commission of acts of lasciviousness.

Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan holds jurisdiction over Criminal
Cases Nos. 24703-04, involving acts of lasciviousness filed against the
petitioner.

Ruling:
Yes. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case involving acts of
lasciviousness filed against the petitioner. Section 4 of Presidential Decree
No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249, grants the Sandiganbayan
exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials in relation
to their office. In People v. Montejo, the court ruled that an offense is
considered committed in relation to the office if it is "intimately connected"
with the offender's office and perpetrated during the performance of official
duties, emphasizing the need for specific factual averments in the Information.
Supreme Court Circular No. 7 dated April 27, 1987, highlights the petitioner's
authority as the presiding judge to recommend appointments, setting the
backdrop for the alleged imposition of a condition on Ana May Simbajon's
appointment. Despite the petitioner's argument that public office is not an
element of acts of lasciviousness, the court deems the crimes as intimately
connected with his office, as evidenced by the allegations in the Amended
Information. Consequently, the court dismisses the petition, affirming
Sandiganbayan’s Resolution and Order dated December 18, 2000, and
January 11, 2001, in Criminal Cases Nos. 24703-04, imposing costs against
the petitioner.