by Marydith Fabros Eusebio

    
HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA v. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE, GR No. 162059, 2008-01-22 (/juris/view/caf25?
user=fcHZHcWZ3TWFwUzRpdHhsejZVejR5L3R3SkJTd216NDY3UTBGR1VraXY3MD0=)

Facts:

Petitioner Hannah Eunice D.  Serana was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu (UP)... known as a government
scholar

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.

petitioner discussed with President Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman.[2] 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 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.

consequently filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman

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

Petitioner moved to quash the information.  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.

Petitioner claimed that Republic Act (R.A.) No.  3019, as amended by R.A.  No.  8249, enumerates the crimes or offenses over which the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.[8] 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), Title VII, Book II of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC).  Estafa falling under Title X, Chapter VI (Crimes Against Property), Book II of... the RPC is not within the
Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.

Petitioner likewise posited that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over her person.  AShe claimed that as a student regent, she was
not a public officer since she merely represented her peers, in contrast to the other regents whothat held their positions in an ex...
officio capacity.  She addsed that she was a simple student and did not receive any salary as a student regent.

Petitioner She further contended also claimed that she had no power or authority to receive monies or funds.  She claimed such power
was vested with the Board of Regents (BOR) as a whole.  Hence, 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 citing the case of Soller v.  Sandiganbayan

Sandiganbayan Disposition

Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's motion for lack of merit... petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.[17] The motion was denied
with finality

Issues:

CAN the Sandiganbayan try a government scholaran iskolar ng bayan a** accused, along with her brother, of swindling government
fundsccused of being the swindler ng bayan?

Petitioner is now before this Court, contending that "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."

(a) the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over estafa; (b) petitioner is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27 and she paid her tuition
fees; (c) the offense charged was not committed in relation... to her office; (d) the funds in question personally came from President
Estrada, not from the government.

Ruling:

The petition cannot be granted.

Preliminarily, the denial of a motion to... quash is not correctible by certiorari.

We would ordinarily dismiss this petition for certiorari outright on procedural grounds.  Well-established is the rule that when a motion
to quash in a criminal case is denied, the remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but for petitioners to go to trial, without... prejudice to
reiterating the special defenses invoked in their motion to quash.

We do not find the Sandiganbayan to have committed a grave abuse of discretion.

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

R.A.  No.  3019, as amended.

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.

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

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.

Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over... the offense of estafa.

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.

Petitioner UP student regent... is a public officer.

Petitioner also contends that she is not a public officer.  She does not receive any salary or remuneration as a UP student regent.  This is
not the first or likely the last time that We will be called upon toare required to define a public officer.

In Laurel v.  Desierto,[41] the Court adopted the definition of Mechem of a public office:

"A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or
enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the...
government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.  The individual so invested is a public officer.

Petitioner claims that she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; she is, in fact, a regular tuition fee-paying student.  This is likewise
bereft of merit.

It is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

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

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.  We find... no
reason to disturb the findings of the Sandiganbayan that 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, We find
that petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by P.D.  No.  1606 the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

compensation is not an essential element of public office.[46] At most, it is merely incidental

The offense charged was committed... in relation to public office, according... to the Information.
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.

According to petitioner, she had no power or authority to act without the approval of the BOR.

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.[... 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."

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.

Principles: