BALABA vs. PEOPLE Facts: - Accused Irenorio Balaba, was the then assistant Municipal Treasurer of Guidulman, Bohol.

- He was charged with Malversation of Funds and found guilty of the said offense by the RTC of Loay, Bohol on Dec. 9, 2002. - Then, on Jan. 14, 2003, Balaba filed his Notice of Appeal to the CA. - The CA, however, dismissed the appeal and declared that it had no jurisdiction to act on the appeal because the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the case. Issues: 1. W/N the CA erred in dismissing Balabas appeal instead of certifying the case to the proper court. NO. 2. W/N the SB has the exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the case. YES. Ruling: 1. The CA did not err. - In the case of Melencion v. SB, the SC ruled that, an error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. However, the correction in designating the proper court should be made within the 15-day period to appeal. xxx. Otherwise, the second paragraph of Sec. 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court would apply, which states that, An appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. 2. The SB shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the RTCs whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction.

ESTEBAN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN Facts: - Petitioner Judge Rogelio Esteban, a public officer, being the Presiding Judge of Br. 1 of the MTC in Cabanatuan, was charged for the violation of RA No. 7877 or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law and for acts of lasciviousness before the Sandiganbayan. Then, the Petitioner filed a motion to quash the charges on the ground that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crimes charged considering that they were not committed in relation to his office as a judge. - The Sandiganbayan denied petitioners motion to quash, holding that the act of approving or indorsing the permanent appointment of complaining witness was certainly a function of the office. Issue: WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Criminal Cases for acts of lasciviousness filed against Petitioner. YES. Ruling: - In the case of People v. Montejo, the SC ruled that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if the offense is intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. - This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information. This is in accordance with the rule that the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or Information. - Thus, where the information is wanting in specific averments to show the intimate relationship/connection between the offense charged and the discharge of official functions, the SB has no jurisdiction over the case. - According to a SC Circular, petitioner, as the presiding judge of the MTCC, he is vested with the power to recommend the appointment of the victim Simbajon

as bookbinder. As alleged in the Amended Informations, she was constrained to approach petitioner as she needed his recommendation. But he imposed a condition before extending such recommendation be his gf and must report to his office for a kiss. o There can be no doubt that petitioner used his official position in committing the acts complained of. Though it is true that public office is not an element of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC, however, he could not have committed the crimes charged were it not for the fact that as the Presiding Judge of the MTCC, he has the authority to recommend the appointment of Simbajon as bookbinder. In other words, the crimed allegedly are intimately committed with his office.