Title
Supreme Court
Esteban vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 146646-49
Decision Date
Mar 11, 2005
Judge Esteban, accused of lascivious acts and sexual harassment, used his judicial authority to impose conditions on a job applicant. The Supreme Court ruled Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction, as the acts were connected to his official functions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146646-49)

Key Dates

• February 1997 – Simbajon detailed to MTCC Branch 1; bookbinder position becomes vacant
• July 25, 1997 – First unwelcome kiss in petitioner’s chambers
• August 5, 1997 – Second incident involving forcible kisses and inappropriate touching
• September 8, 1997 – Simbajon files complaint with City Prosecutor, Cabanatuan City
• March 9 & July 1, 1998 – Informations for Sexual Harassment (R.A. 7877) and acts of lasciviousness (Revised Penal Code, Art. 336) filed with Sandiganbayan
• December 18, 2000 & January 11, 2001 – Sandiganbayan Resolution and Order denying motion to quash
• June 5, 2006 – Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision post-1990)
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code (acts of lasciviousness)
• Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995)
• Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by Republic Act No. 8249 (Sandiganbayan jurisdiction)
• Supreme Court Circular No. 7 (1987) – Appointment recommendations in the judiciary

Factual Allegations

When Simbajon sought a permanent appointment as bookbinder, Petitioner conditioned his recommendation on her consenting to be his “girlfriend” and reporting daily for a kiss. After her refusal, he forcibly kissed her on July 25 and again on August 5, 1997, with further unconsented embraces and touching of her breast. Distressed, Simbajon reported the incidents to co-employees and filed a sworn complaint on September 8, 1997.

Procedural History

  1. Two initial Informations for violation of R.A. 7877 and two for acts of lasciviousness were filed with the Sandiganbayan.
  2. Petitioner moved to quash the latter on double jeopardy grounds; motion denied.
  3. Prosecution filed Amended Informations charging acts of lasciviousness “in relation to his office” as a judge.
  4. Petitioner again moved to quash for lack of jurisdiction; Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Informations and denied reconsideration (Dec 18, 2000; Jan 11, 2001).
  5. Petitioner sought certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented

Whether the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over the acts of lasciviousness charges against Judge Esteban by reason of their alleged connection to his official functions.

Court’s Analysis

Under Section 4(b), P.D. 1606 (as amended by R.A. 8249), the Sandiganbayan exercises “exclusive original jurisdiction” over offenses by public officials when “committed in relation to their office.” Jurisdiction depends on factual allegations showing an intimate connection between the offense and the performance of official duties (People v. Montejo).

Here, the Amended Informations allege that Petitioner exploited his official authority to recommend Simbajon’s appointment as a condition for sexual favors. Supreme

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.