GR 146646 49; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 146646-49. March 11, 2005
ROGELIO M. ESTEBAN, Petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Judge Rogelio M. Esteban was charged with two counts of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code before the Sandiganbayan. The Informations alleged that on two separate occasions in 1997, he kissed the complainant, Ana May V. Simbajon, a subordinate employee detailed to his court, against her will. The complaints stated that these acts were committed after the complainant had rejected the judge’s sexual solicitations, which he had made a condition for recommending her permanent appointment to a vacant bookbinder position in his court.
Petitioner moved to quash the Informations, arguing that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction. He contended that the crimes charged were not committed “in relation to his office” as a judge, which is a jurisdictional requirement under Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, for the Sandiganbayan to try a public officer for offenses not inherently connected to public office. He asserted that Acts of Lasciviousness is a crime where public office is not an element, and the alleged acts were purely personal and private.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly assumed jurisdiction over the criminal cases for Acts of Lasciviousness against petitioner, a judge, on the ground that the offenses were committed in relation to his office.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. The legal logic hinges on the jurisdictional rule that the Sandiganbayan has authority over public officers charged with offenses committed in relation to their office. The determination of whether an act is “in relation to office” depends on the allegations in the Information. The Amended Informations explicitly alleged that petitioner, using his official authority as the Presiding Judge with the power to recommend appointments, imposed sexual favors as a condition for endorsing the complainant’s permanent employment. The acts of kissing were directly linked to this abuse of his official function.
The Court ruled that while public office is not an element of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness, the crimes could not have been committed were it not for the accused’s official position and the authority it afforded him over the complainant’s employment. The nexus between the act and the office was intimate and direct, as the accused exploited his official power to facilitate the commission of the crime. Therefore, the allegations sufficiently established that the offenses were committed in relation to his office, vesting jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan. The petition for certiorari was dismissed.