Esteban v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ana May V. Simbajon, a casual employee of the City Government of Cabanatuan City, was detailed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTCC), Branch 1, Cabanatuan City, upon the request of its Presiding Judge, Rogelio M. Esteban (petitioner). After the bookbinder position became vacant, Simbajon applied, but petitioner did not act on her application. On July 25, 1997, when Simbajon followed up her application, petitioner proposed that she become his girlfriend, report to his office daily, and give him a kiss daily in exchange for his signature on her permanent appointment. Simbajon refused, considering him like a father. Petitioner then recommended her for appointment and suddenly kissed her on the cheek. On August 5, 1997, petitioner summoned Simbajon to his chambers regarding the payroll. He questioned why she had not been reporting to his office if she was receiving her salary as bookbinder, reiterating his proposal that she be his girlfriend. Simbajon again protested, stating he was like a father and a married man. Petitioner then grabbed her, declared his love, embraced her, kissed her face, and touched her right breast. Simbajon escaped and reported the incident. Procedural History: Two Informations for violation of R.A. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Law) and two Informations for acts of lasciviousness were filed against petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the Informations for acts of lasciviousness, arguing double jeopardy. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion but directed the prosecution to determine if the offenses were committed in relation to petitioner's functions as a judge. Amended Informations were filed, alleging the acts were committed in relation to his office. Petitioner filed another motion to quash, questioning the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion, holding that approving or endorsing the permanent appointment was a function of his office, thus the acts were committed in relation to his office. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the Sandiganbayan's Resolution and Order denying his motion to quash, arguing that the acts of lasciviousness were not committed in relation to his office.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the acts of lasciviousness filed against the petitioner, and whether the alleged acts of lasciviousness were committed in relation to the petitioner's office as a judge.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Sandiganbayan did not gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting the Amended Informations for acts of lasciviousness. The assailed Resolution and Order of the Sandiganbayan are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction and whether the acts were committed in relation to the petitioner's office: The Court held that an offense is committed in relation to the office if it is "intimately connected" with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. This intimate connection must be alleged in the Information. In this case, the Amended Informations alleged that Simbajon was constrained to approach petitioner for his recommendation for permanent appointment as bookbinder, a power vested in him as Presiding Judge. Petitioner imposed sexual demands as a condition for extending this recommendation. Therefore, petitioner used his official position in committing the acts complained of. The crimes were intimately connected with his office because he could not have committed them without the authority he possessed as Presiding Judge to recommend Simbajon's appointment. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is determined by the allegations in the Information, which in this case sufficiently showed the intimate relationship between the offense charged and the discharge of official functions. Thus, the Sandiganbayan correctly assumed jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials if the offense is intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions, as alleged in the Information.