#24

HANNAH EUNICE SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

G. R. No. 162059
January 22, 2008

FACTS:
Petitioner, Serana, was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-
Cebu. She was appointed by then President Estrada as a student regent of UP from
January 1, 2000 upto December 31, 2000.

Petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the SEC the Office
of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. or OSRFI. One of its projects was the
renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex. President Estrada gave 15 million pessos to
the OSRFI for the renovation and such fund was from the Office of the President
itself.

The renovation failed to materialize. The succeeding regent, and other

students, formed a system-wide alliance and consequently filed a complaint for
Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman.

Petitioner moved to quash the information stating that:

1) the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense
charged or over her person as a UP student regent;
2) that Republic Act 3019 enumerates the crimes or offenses over which the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, in which estafa is not included;
3) and, assuming that she received the P15, 000, 000. 00, such amount came
from Estrada and not from the government.

She further contended that she had no power to receive funds as such was
vested with the Board of Regents. Since it was not included in the information that
she had power to receive funds or the crime was commited in connection with her
official functions, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

In opposing the motion, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the accused-movant’s

claim that she is not a public officer as she was merely a representative of a student
body and have never received compensation was of no consequence because R. A.
8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction
in all cases involving (1)(g) Presidents, directors, trustees or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational
institutions.

ISSUE: 1) WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of Estafa

2) WON Hannah Serana is a public officer
RULING:
1) Yes. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of Estafa.

Section 4(B) of P. D. No. 1606 reads: Other offenses or felonies whether

simple or complexed with other crimes committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office. Plainly, Estafa is
one of those other felonies. The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin
requirements that 1) the offense is committed by public officials and employees
mentioned in Section 4 (A) of P. D. 1606, as amended, and that 2) the offense is
committed in relation to their office.

2) Yes. Petiotioner is a public officer.

The contention of the petitioner that she is not a public officer with Salary
Grade 27 is berefet of merit.

It is not the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over officers enumerated
in P. D. 1606. The case of Geduspan vs. People held that while the first part of
Section 4(A) covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, the second part
specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary
Grade 27 or higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

As part of the Board of Regents, the petitioner performs functions similar to

those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. And as such, she is included
in the enumeration laid down in Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P. D. 1606. Thus, petitioner
falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by express provision of law.