Serana v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana, a senior student at UP-Cebu and a student regent, along with her brother Jade Ian D. Serana, were accused of estafa for allegedly defrauding the government of P15,000,000.00. The funds were purportedly given by then President Joseph Estrada to the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI), which petitioner co-founded, for the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex. The renovation failed to materialize. Procedural History: The Ombudsman found probable cause and indicted petitioner and her brother for estafa. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information before the Sandiganbayan, arguing that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over estafa and over her person as a student regent, and that the offense was not committed in relation to her office, nor was the money from the government. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, stating it had jurisdiction over estafa committed by public officers in relation to their office, that petitioner was a public officer under R.A. No. 8249, and that the source of funds was a matter of defense. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's denial of her motion to quash, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of estafa. Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner as a UP student regent. Whether the offense of estafa was committed in relation to the petitioner's office. Whether the source of the P15,000,000.00 (government funds vs. President Estrada's personal funds) affects the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over estafa: The Court reiterated that the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is primarily determined by P.D. No. 1606, as amended. While Section 4(A) enumerates specific offenses and positions, Section 4(B) provides a "catch-all" provision granting jurisdiction over "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." The Court held that estafa falls under this "other offenses" category, provided it is committed by a public official in relation to their office. The Court cited Perlas, Jr. v. People and Bondoc v. Sandiganbayan to support its stance that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa cases involving public officers. On the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over the petitioner's person: The Court affirmed that petitioner, as a member of the UP Board of Regents (BOR), is considered a public officer under Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, which includes "Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations." The Court emphasized that jurisdiction over such officials is irrespective of their salary grade. It clarified that compensation is not an essential element of public office, and the delegation of sovereign functions, such as the administration of UP, makes an individual a public officer. On whether the offense was committed in relation to public office: The Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information. The information explicitly alleged that petitioner, "while in the performance of her official functions, committing the offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position," defrauded the government. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding that the offense was committed in relation to her office based on these allegations. On the source of funds: The Court reiterated the Sandiganbayan's observation that the source of the P15,000,000.00 is a matter of defense that should be raised and threshed out during the trial on the merits, not during a motion to quash. The information alleged that the funds were requested from the "Office of the President," which is a government entity, thus supporting the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over estafa cases filed against public officers when the offense is committed in relation to their office, irrespective of their salary grade. A petition for certiorari to assail the denial of a motion to quash is generally not the proper remedy, unless the denial was attended by grave abuse of discretion.