SERANA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (Kat) (OSRFI).
January 22, 2008 | Reyes, R.T., J. | Jurisdiction
PETITIONER: Hannah Eunice D. Serana
RESPONDENTS: Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines
SUMMARY: Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student and is
considered as a government scholar of the University of the Philippines-Cebu.
She was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada on December 21, 1999 as a
student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term starting January 1, 2000 and
ending on December 31, 2000. In the early part of 2000, petitioner discussed
with President Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman. On
September 4, 2000, petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the Office of the Student Regent
Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). One of the projects of the OSRFI was the renovation
of the Vinzons Hall Annex. President Estrada gave Fifteen Million Pesos
(P15,000,000.00) to the OSRFI as financial assistance for the proposed
renovation. The source of the funds, according to the information, was the Office
of the President.The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. The
petitioner was then tried for estafa which was filed before the Sandiganbayan.
DOCTRINE: 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
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student and is considered
as a government scholar of the University of the Philippines-Cebu. She was
appointed by then President Joseph Estrada on December 21, 1999 as a
student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term starting January 1, 2000 and
ending on December 31, 2000.
ISSUE/s:
2. In the early part of 2000, petitioner discussed with President Estrada the
renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman. On September 4, 2000,
petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the Securities and
RULING: SC affirmed the lower courts decision. Pwede rin wherefore.
Exchange Commission the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc.
3. One of the projects of the OSRFI was the renovation of the Vinzons Hall
Annex. President Estrada gave Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00) to
the OSRFI as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. The source
of the funds, according to the information, was the Office of the President.
4. The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. The succeeding
student regent, Kristine Clare Bugayong, and Christine Jill De Guzman,
Secretary General of the KASAMA sa U.P., a system-wide alliance of
student councils within the state university, consequently filed a complaint
for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the
Ombudsman.
5. On July 3, 2003, 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.
6. As per the petitioner she claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any
jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as
UP student regent.
7. She cited RA 3019 as amended by RA No, 8249 which enumerated the
crimes of offenses over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. The list
did not provide for the prosecution of Estafa. Furthermore, she argued that
President Estrada provided the funds being questioned and it did not come
from the coffers of the government.
8. As a student regent she is not considered as a public officer since she
merely represents the student body. She likewise has no power or authority
to receive monies or funds. Such power was vested with the Board of
Regents as a whole. The information failed to aver that it was her duty to
receive funds or that the crime that was committed was in relation to her
official functions.
9. SANDIGANBAYAN: Denied to quash the information
1. Does the Sandiganbayan vested with jurisdiction to try the case at bar. –
YES
RATIO:
ISSUE ON JURSIDICTION:
1. Her claim has no basis in law. It is P.D. No. 1606, as amended, rather than
R.A. No. 3019, as amended, that determines the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. A brief legislative history of the statute creating the
Sandiganbayan is in order. The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No.
1486, promulgated by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos on June 11,
1978. It was promulgated to attain the highest norms of official conduct
required of public officers and employees, based on the concept that public
officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all times accountable to
the people. P.D. No. 1486 was, in turn, amended by P.D. No. 1606 which
was promulgated on December 10, 1978. P.D. No. 1606 expanded the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. P.D. No. 1606 was later amended by P.D.
No. 1861 on March 23, 1983, further altering the Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction. R.A. No. 7975 approved on March 30, 1995 made succeeding
amendments to P.D. No. 1606, which was again amended on February 5,
1997 by R.A. No. 8249. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 further modified the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. As it now stands, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the following:
2. Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction in all cases involving:
A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, other known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter
II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or
more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time
of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade "27" and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 989 (Republic Act No.
6758), specifically including:
" (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city
department heads;
" (b) City mayor, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod,
city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
"(c ) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul
and higher;
" (d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers
of higher rank;
" (e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position
of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintended or
higher;
" (f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and
prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
" (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations.
" (2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade "27'"
and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
" (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution;
" (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commission, without
prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
" (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27'" and
higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
B. Other offenses of felonies whether simple or complexed with other
crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection a of this section in relation to their office.
C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
" In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding
to Salary Grade "27'" or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No.
6758, or military and PNP officer mentioned above, exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional court, metropolitan
trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case
may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
" The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over
final judgments, resolutions or order of regional trial courts whether in the
exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as
herein provided.
" The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over
petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo
warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed
under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided,
That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the
Supreme Court.
" The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the
implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may
thereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court
of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the
Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the
Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman,
through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines,
except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A,
issued in 1986.
" In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or
accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed
in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly
with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.
" Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding,
the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of
civil liability shall, at all times, be simultaneously instituted with, and
jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve
the filing such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be
recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had heretofore
been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and
the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan
or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint
determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action
shall be deemed abandoned."
3. Upon the other hand, R.A. No. 3019 is a penal statute approved on August
17, 1960. The said law represses certain acts of public officers and private
persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead
thereto.31 Pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 3019, all prosecutions for
violation of the said law should be filed with the Sandiganbayan.32
4. R.A. No. 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the cases over which the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. In fact, Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019
erroneously cited by petitioner, deals not with the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan but with prohibition on private individuals. We quote:
5. Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals. – (a) It shall be unlawful for
any person having family or close personal relation with any public official
to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal
relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or
material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some
business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government,
in which such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include
the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree.
The word "close personal relation" shall include close personal friendship,
social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving
rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any
public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.
6. In fine, the two statutes differ in that P.D. No. 1606, as amended, defines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan while R.A. No. 3019, as amended,
defines graft and corrupt practices and provides for their penalties.
THE SANDIGANBAYAN HAS JURISDICTION OVER ESTAFA
7. Relying on Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, petitioner contends that estafa is not
among those crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. We note that in
hoisting this argument, petitioner isolated the first paragraph of Section 4 of
P.D. No. 1606, without regard to the succeeding paragraphs of the said
provision.
8. The rule is well-established in this jurisdiction that statutes should receive a
sensible construction so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.33
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. Kung saan mayroong
kalabuan, ang pagpapaliwanag ay hindi dapat maging mahirap at
katawa-tawa.
9. Every section, provision or clause of the statute must be expounded by
reference to each other in order to arrive at the effect contemplated by the
legislature. The intention of the legislator must be ascertained from the
whole text of the law and every part of the act is to be taken into view. In
other words, petitioner’s interpretation lies in direct opposition to the rule
that a statute must be interpreted as a whole under the principle that the best
interpreter of a statute is the statute itself. Optima statuti interpretatrix est
ipsum statutum. Ang isang batas ay marapat na bigyan ng kahulugan sa
kanyang kabuuan sa ilalim ng prinsipyo na ang pinakamainam na
interpretasyon ay ang mismong batas.
10. Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 reads:
B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other
crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in
subsection a of this section in relation to their office.
Evidently, 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.
THE PETITIONER IS CONSIDERED AS A PUBLIC OFFICER
11. 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. 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. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office.
Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the public office. An
investment in an individual of some portion of the sovereign functions of
the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes
one a public officer.The administration of the UP is a sovereign function in
line with Article XIV of the Constitution. UP performs a legitimate
governmental function by providing advanced instruction in literature,
philosophy, the sciences, and arts, and giving professional and technical
training. Moreover, UP is maintained by the Government and it declares no
dividends and is not a corporation created for profit.
12. 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."
13. Clearly, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Sandiganbayan when it did not quash the information based on this ground.
14. It is contended anew that the amount came from President Estrada’s private
funds and not from the government coffers. Petitioner insists the charge has
no leg to stand on.
AS TO THE SOURCE OF FUNDS
15. We cannot agree. The information alleges that the funds came from the
Office of the President and not its then occupant, President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada. Under the information, it is averred that "petitioner requested the
amount of Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00), Philippine Currency,
from the Office of the President, and the latter relying and believing on said
false pretenses and misrepresentation gave and delivered to said accused
Land Bank Check No. 91353 dated October 24, 2000 in the amount of
 Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00)."

16. Again, the Court sustains the Sandiganbayan observation that the source of
the P15,000,000 is a matter of defense that should be ventilated during the
trial on the merits of the instant case.