Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 37 views

    SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No. 162059

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa charges against Hannah Eunice Serana. Serana, a former student regent of the University of the Philippines, received 15 million pesos from former President Estrada for renovations at UP Diliman that did not occur. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Serana and her brother for estafa. While estafa is normally outside the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, the court ruled it has jurisdiction if the offense is committed by a public official in relation to their office, as was the case with Serana. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is defined by P.D. No. 1606, not R.A. No.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No. 162059

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    37 views2 pages
    The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa charges against Hannah Eunice Serana. Serana, a former student regent of the University of the Philippines, received 15 million pesos from former President Estrada for renovations at UP Diliman that did not occur. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Serana and her brother for estafa. While estafa is normally outside the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, the court ruled it has jurisdiction if the offense is committed by a public official in relation to their office, as was the case with Serana. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is defined by P.D. No. 1606, not R.A. No.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa charges against Hannah Eunice Serana. Serana, a former student regent of the University of the Philippines, received 15 million pesos from former President Estrada for renovations at UP Diliman that did not occur. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Serana and her brother for estafa. While estafa is normally outside the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, the court ruled it has jurisdiction if the offense is committed by a public official in relation to their office, as was the case with Serana. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is defined by P.D. No. 1606, not R.A. No.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    37 views2 pages

    SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No. 162059

    Uploaded by

    Joycee Armillo
    The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa charges against Hannah Eunice Serana. Serana, a former student regent of the University of the Philippines, received 15 million pesos from former President Estrada for renovations at UP Diliman that did not occur. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Serana and her brother for estafa. While estafa is normally outside the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, the court ruled it has jurisdiction if the offense is committed by a public official in relation to their office, as was the case with Serana. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is defined by P.D. No. 1606, not R.A. No.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No.

    162059, January 22,


    2008

    Facts: Petitioner Serana was a student regent of the University of the Philippines-Cebu
    President Estrada gave her Php 15 million pesos for the renovation of Vinzons Hall
    Annex in UP Diliman. The renovation failed to materialize. The succeeding student
    regents filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office
    of the Ombudsman.

    The Ombudsman, after due investigation, found probable cause to indict petitioner and
    her brother Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 27819 of the
    Sandiganbayan.

    Petitioner claimed that Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense
    charged because RA 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, enumerates the crimes over
    which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.

    It has no jurisdiction over the crime of estafa. It only has jurisdiction over crimes covered
    by Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 (Crimes Committed by Public Officers), Book II of the
    RPC. Estafa falling under Title X, Chapter VI (Crimes Against Property), is not within
    the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.

    Issue: W/N Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa

    Held: Yes.

    Estafa is one of those felonies within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, 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. 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.

    The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A.
    No. 3019, as amended.

    R.A. No. 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the cases over which the
    Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.

    Statues should receive a sensible construction so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd


    conclusion. Where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid inconvenience
    and absurdity is to be adopted.

    You might also like