Serana vs. Sandiganbayan

A student regent of a state university is a public officer falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606, and the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of estafa when committed by such officer in relation to their office.

Hannah Eunice D. Serana, appointed as a student regent of the University of the Philippines by President Joseph Estrada, organized the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI) with relatives. She requested and received P15,000,000.00 from the Office of the President for the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex. The renovation failed to materialize, prompting a complaint with the Ombudsman, which led to an indictment for estafa against Serana and her brother.

• Appointment: Petitioner was appointed student regent of UP by President Estrada on December 21, 1999, for a one-year term ending December 31, 2000.
• The Foundation and the Funds: In early 2000, petitioner discussed the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex with President Estrada. On September 4, 2000, petitioner and relatives registered the OSRFI with the SEC. President Estrada provided P15,000,000.00 to the OSRFI, sourced from the Office of the President, via Land Bank Check No. 91353 dated October 24, 2000.
• The Misappropriation: Petitioner's brother encashed the check on October 25, 2000. The renovation project never materialized.
• The Indictment: A complaint was filed with the Ombudsman by the succeeding student regent and a student council official. The Ombudsman indicted petitioner and her brother for estafa under Paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Jurisdiction over the Offense: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction over estafa, claiming its jurisdiction is limited to violations of R.A. No. 3019 and crimes committed by public officers under Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2, Book II of the RPC.
• Public Officer Status: Petitioner maintained that a student regent is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; the position is representative in nature, and she received no salary.
• Relation to Office: Petitioner contended that the offense was not committed in relation to her office because she lacked the power or authority to receive funds without Board of Regents (BOR) approval, and no BOR resolution authorized her actions.
• Source of Funds: Petitioner insisted that the P15,000,000.00 came personally from President Estrada, not from government coffers.

• Catch-all Jurisdiction: Respondent countered that Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 contains a catch-all phrase granting the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials "in relation to office."
• Public Officer Status: Respondent argued that as a member of the BOR, petitioner exercised general powers of administration and corporate powers of UP. Compensation is not an essential element of public office, and allowances constitute compensation.
• Source of Funds: Respondent maintained that the source of the money is a matter of defense to be threshed out during a full-blown trial.

• Jurisdiction over Estafa: Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of estafa.
• Public Officer Status: Whether a UP student regent is a public officer under Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606.
• Relation to Office: Whether the offense charged was committed in relation to the petitioner's office.
• Source of Funds: Whether the alleged private source of the funds deprives the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the denial of a motion to quash.

• Jurisdiction over Estafa: Jurisdiction is properly vested in the Sandiganbayan. P.D. No. 1606, not R.A. No. 3019, determines the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 grants jurisdiction over "other offenses or felonies... committed by the public officials... in relation to their office," encompassing estafa.
• Public Officer Status: A UP student regent is a public officer under Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606, which expressly includes "directors or trustees... of state universities." The BOR performs functions similar to a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. Compensation is not an essential element of public office; the delegation of sovereign functions is.
• Relation to Office: Jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information. The information explicitly alleged that petitioner acted "while in the performance of her official functions, committing the offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position."
• Source of Funds: The information alleges the funds came from the Office of the President. The claim that the funds were personally sourced from President Estrada is a matter of defense for trial.
• Propriety of Certiorari: While the denial of a motion to quash is generally not correctible by certiorari, exceptions exist for lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. No grave abuse of discretion was found here.

• Jurisdiction Determined by Averments in the Information — The jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the information, not by the defenses or theories set up by the accused in a motion to quash or answer.
• Definition of Public Office — A public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised for the benefit of the public. Compensation is not an essential element; the delegation of sovereign functions is essential.
• Statutory Construction against Absurdity — Statutes must be interpreted as a whole (optima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statutum), and a sensible construction must be adopted to avoid unjust or absurd conclusions. Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 must be read in its entirety, not in isolated paragraphs.

• "The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A. No. 3019, as amended."
• "Evidently, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office... The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office."
• "It is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office. Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the public office."

• Perlas, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 84637-39, August 2, 1989 — Followed: Confirmed that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa committed by a director of a government instrumentality.
• Bondoc v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 71163-65, November 9, 1990 — Followed: Reiterated Sandiganbayan's exclusive original jurisdiction over estafa thru falsification committed by government employees in conspiracy with private persons.
• Geduspan v. People, G.R. No. 158187, February 11, 2005 — Followed: Held that jurisdiction is not determined solely by salary grade; Section 4(A) specifically includes officials by express provision of law regardless of salary grade.
• Laurel v. Desierto, 430 Phil. 658 (G.R. No. 145368, April 12, 2002) — Followed: Adopted Mechem's definition of a public office, emphasizing that compensation is not an essential element but the delegation of sovereign functions is.
• Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-63559, May 30, 1986 — Cited: Enumerated exceptions to the rule that the denial of a motion to dismiss/quash is not correctible by certiorari, specifically when the court acts without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

• Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, Section 4 — Defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Section 4(A)(1)(g) expressly includes presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of state universities. Section 4(B) grants jurisdiction over other offenses committed by public officials in relation to their office. Applied to establish the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over a UP student regent charged with estafa.
• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 4 — Cited to clarify that this section deals with prohibitions on private individuals, not the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, contrary to the petitioner's misquotation.
• Revised Penal Code, Article 315, Paragraph 2(a) — Defines estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts. The petitioner was charged under this provision.

Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson; Austria-Martinez; Corona; Nachura.