View full case

HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA v. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE

FACTS:

Hannah Eunice D. Serana, a senior student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu (UP), was appointed as a student regent of UP by then President Joseph Estrada. She registered the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI) with her siblings and relatives, and one of their projects was the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex, for which President Estrada provided P15,000,000. However, the renovation never happened. After an investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner Serana and her brother for estafa. Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person as a UP student regent. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan only has jurisdiction over crimes committed by public officers, and she argued that she was not a public officer and had no power or authority to receive funds.

The case involves a petition filed by a member of the Board of Regents (BOR) of the University of the Philippines (UP) seeking to quash an information filed against her for estafa. She argued that since the alleged offense was committed in connection with her official functions as a member of the BOR, it fell outside the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. She claimed that she was not a public officer due to the lack of compensation and not falling under Salary Grade 27. However, the Ombudsman disputed this, stating that compensation is not essential for public office, and her role as a member of the BOR makes her a public officer. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash, asserting jurisdiction over the offense since it was committed by a public official in relation to her position. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied, with finality.

Moreover, the petitioner, an incumbent Senator, was charged with estafa before the Sandiganbayan. She filed a motion to quash the information, contending that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offense, as she claimed not to be a public officer with Salary Grade 27. She argued that the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office, and the funds in question came from President Estrada, not the government. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion, leading the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the denial of a motion to quash is correctible by certiorari.

  2. Whether the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is determined by R.A. No. 3019 or P.D. No. 1606.

  3. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 3019 and other related laws.

  4. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by regional trial courts.

  5. Whether estafa is among the offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

  6. Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa cases committed by public officials.

  7. Whether the petitioner is a public officer.

  8. Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense committed by the petitioner.

  9. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in not quashing the information.

  10. Whether or not the source of funds is a defense that should be raised during trial on the merits.

  11. Whether or not petitioner's counsel misrepresented the law.

RULING:

  1. The denial of a motion to quash is not correctible by certiorari, except in cases where the court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

  2. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is determined by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A. No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486 and its jurisdiction was expanded by P.D. No. 1606. Subsequent amendments to P.D. No. 1606 modified its jurisdiction. As it currently stands, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.

  3. Yes, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 3019 and other related laws. This jurisdiction extends to cases where one or more of the accused are officials occupying certain positions in the government, as specified in the law. For cases where none of the accused occupy the mentioned positions, the jurisdiction is vested in the appropriate regional court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, or municipal circuit trial court.

  4. Yes, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by regional trial courts, whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan also has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of writs and other ancillary processes arising from cases filed under certain executive orders.

  5. Yes, estafa is among the offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 grants the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over "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." Estafa is considered as one of those "other felonies" covered by this provision.

  6. Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa cases committed by public officials. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan extends to all offenses committed by public officials mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, in relation to their office. As long as the offense of estafa is committed by a public official in relation to their office, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

  7. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is a public officer based on the definition provided by jurisprudence. While the petitioner may not receive any salary or remuneration as a UP student regent, the Court ruled that compensation is not an essential element of public office. The petitioner's position as a UP student regent falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provision of law.

  8. The Supreme Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the offense committed by the petitioner. As a president, director, or trustee of a government-owned or controlled corporation, state university, educational institution, or foundation, the petitioner falls under the category of officers explicitly vested with jurisdiction by Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606. The offense committed by the petitioner was deemed to have been committed in relation to her public office based on the averments in the information.

  9. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in not quashing the information.

  10. The source of funds is a defense that should be raised during trial on the merits.

  11. Petitioner's counsel misrepresented the law and violated the ethical canon of not misquoting or misrepresenting.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The denial of a motion to quash in a criminal case is generally not correctible by certiorari, except in cases where the court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

  • The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is determined by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and not by R.A. No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486 and its jurisdiction was expanded by P.D. No. 1606. Subsequent amendments to P.D. No. 1606 modified its jurisdiction. As it currently stands, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended.

  • The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 3019 and other related laws, provided that one or more of the accused are officials occupying certain positions in the government.

  • The Sandiganbayan also has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by regional trial courts.

  • The Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of writs and other ancillary processes arising from cases filed under certain executive orders.

  • The criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall be simultaneously instituted and jointly determined in the same proceeding before the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts.

  • Statutes should receive a sensible construction to avoid unjust or absurd conclusions.

  • Every section, provision, or clause of a statute must be interpreted in reference to each other to arrive at the effect contemplated by the legislature.

  • The best interpreter of a statute is the statute itself.

  • The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa cases committed by public officials in relation to their office.

  • 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.

  • The definition of a public officer is not limited to those with Salary Grade 27 or higher, as other executive officials may be placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by express provision of law.

  • Compensation is not an essential element of public office.

  • Jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information and is not affected by the pleas or theories set up by the defendant or respondent.

  • Jurisdiction cannot be dependent on the whims of the defendant or respondent.

  • The source of funds is a matter of defense that should be ventilated during trial on the merits.

  • Lawyers have an obligation to be candid, fair, and honest to the Court and should not misquote or misrepresent the law.