You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

162059 January 22, 2008


HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana, a senior student of the University of the Philippines-
Cebu, was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada on as a student regent of UP, to serve a
one-year term starting January 1, 2000 and ending on December 31, 2000. President Estrada,
through the Office of the President, funded Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00) for the
renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex, a proposed project of the Office of the Student Regent
Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI), which was registered with the SEC by the petitioner. The renovation
of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. The petitioners successor filed Malversation of
Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman. On July 3, 2003, the
Ombudsman, after due investigation, found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother
Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa.

Moving to quash the information, petitioner contends the following:

1. Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her
person because she was not a public officer since she merely represented her peers, in
contrast to the other regents who held their positions in an ex officio capacity and that she
did not receive any salary as a student regent.
2. Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the case of estafa as it is not included
in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, that enumerates the
crimes or offenses over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
3. Arguendo, the amount came from President Estrada’s private funds and not the
government coffers,
4. She had no power or authority to receive monies or funds and that it was not alleged in
the information that it was among her functions or duties to receive funds, or that the
crime was committed in connection with her official functions

The Sandiganbayan denied its motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration with finality in
a Resolution dated February 4, 2004. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack and/or excess of jurisdiction in not quashing the information and dismising
the case notwithstanding that is has no jurisdiction over the offense charged in the
information

RULING:

The Court ruled in the negative.


Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction
over Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under
this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of
a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation.45 By express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed,
a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606.

Moreover, it is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public


office.46 At most, it is merely incidental to the public office.47

Petitioner claims that she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27. It is not only the
salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also has
jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No. 1606. In Geduspan v. People,43 We held
that while the first part of Section 4(A) covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its
second part specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary
Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the
said court. Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by
express provision of law.

The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in
relation to their office. We see no plausible or sensible reason to exclude estafa as one of the
offenses included in Section 4(bB) of P.D. No. 1606. Plainly, estafa is one of those other
felonies. 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.

Petitioner likewise argues that even assuming that she is a public officer, the
Sandiganbayan would still not have jurisdiction over the offense because it was not committed in
relation to her office.

It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information.51 More


than that, jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant or
respondent in an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a motion to quash.52 Otherwise, jurisdiction
would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of defendant or respondent.

In the case at bench, the information alleged, in no uncertain terms that petitioner, being
then a student regent of U.P., "while in the performance of her official functions, committing the
offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position, with intent to gain,
conspiring with her brother, JADE IAN D. SERANA, a private individual, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the government x x x." (Underscoring supplied)

You might also like