SERANA V SANDIGANBAYAN  PD 1606 clearly has the catch all phrase “-in relation to office” thus
Jan. 22, 2008|Reyes the SB has jurisdiction over the charges. The source of the money
Topic: Jurisdiction of criminal courts
Hannah Serana was a senior student and government scholar in UP
Cebu. She was appointed by President Estrada as student regent of UP to
serve a one year term starting Jan-Dec. 31, 2000. She discussed with
President Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UPD. On Sept,
she and her relatives registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc.
 Pres. Estrada or the Office of the President gave P15M to OSRFI as
financial assistance for the renovation.
 The renovation did not push through. The next student regemt,
Kristine Bugayong and Christine de Guzman (SecGen) of KASAMA
in UP filed a complaint for malversation of public funds and property
with the Ombudsman who found probable cause.
o Sandiganbayan through the Office of the Special Prosecutor
accused Serana, within its jurisdiction, as a high ranking
public officer for conspiring with her brother for malversation
of funds from the Office of the President.
Serena moved to quash, saying:
 Sandiganbayan (SB) did not have jurisdiction of the offense charged
or over her person as student regent
o RA 3019, the jurisdiction of SB, does not include estafa. It
only has jurisdiction over crimes covered by Title VII,
Chapter II, Section 2 (Crimes Committed by Public Officers),
Book II of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Estafa falling
under Title X, Chapter VI (Crimes Against Property), Book II
of the RPC.
 It was President Estrada, not the government that was duped. The
money came from Estrada and not the government.
 No jurisdiction over her person, as student regent, she is not a
public officer for she merely represented her peers, unlike other
regents who were there under ex oficio capacity and she did not
have any salary.
 She also said she had no power to receive funds, that power was
with the Board of Regenets. Since 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 same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
as per Solier v SB.
Ombudsman & SB:
should be threshed out in the trial. Has juris over “presidents,
directors or trustees or managers of GOCCs, state universities or
educational institutions or fandations”.
 She is a public officer, as member of the BOR, she has general
powers of admin and exercises the corporate powers of BOR. The
BOR exercises the general powers of admin and corporate powers in
the university like receiving sums given by law to the university. They
are acting like a Board of Trustees in a corporation. Compensation is
not an essential part of public office.
ISSUE: W/N SB committed GAD in not quashing the information because of
not having jurisdiction over estafa
HELD:
1. Denial of motion to quash is not correctible by certiorari but to go to trial
and reiterate the special defenses invoked in motion to quash.
2. NO. The jurisdiction of the SB is set by PD No. 1606, not RA 3019 (Anti
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). SB was created by PD 1486 by Pres.
Marcos. It was then amended by PD 1606 on 1978 which expanded the
jurisdiction of the SB. Later amended by PD 1861, 7975 and 8249:
 Violators of RA 3019
 Officials of exec branch or Grade 27 and up (including city mayors,
officials of diplomatic service consul or higher, PH army and air force
colonels, naval captains and up, PNP provincial director and sr.
superintendent and up, Presidents, directors or trustees, or
managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations, Congress
members and Grade 27 up, members of Judiciary w/o prejudice to
the Constitutoin, Consti Commmission, other officials Grade 27 and
up)
 Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other
crimes done by public officials and employees mentioned in
subection a of this section
 Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to EO 1, 2, 14 and 14-A
*not over private individuals co-accused
RA 3019 was approved 1950, represses the acts of public officers and
private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices. It is an
erroneous citation.
3. SB has jurisdiction over estafa. Statutes should have a sensible
construction as to an unjust or absurd conclusion. Interpretatio talis in
ambiguis semper fienda est, ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum (Where
there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid inconvenience and
absurdity is to be adopted). The whole statute should be taken as a whole,
and the intention of the legislator must be ascertained from the whole text of
the law. Optima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statutum (The best interpretor
of the statute is the statute itself).

SB has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public

officers in relation to 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.

4. Serana is a public officer. A public office is the right, authority and duty
created and conferred by law for a period of time or until the creating
authority pleases. It is not only salary grade that determines SB jurisdiction,
but also “other officers” who by express provision are placed in PD 1606
jurisdiction (Presidents, directors, trustees of..state universities). The BOR
acts like a Board of Truestees.

5. The offense charged was committed in relation to public office.

6. Source of funds should be raised during trial on merits.
7. Atty. Dela Cruz misrepresented his reference to PD 1606 as a quotation
from RA 3019. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and honesty to the court.

DISPOSITVE: Denied.

RSAT