Case Digest (G.R. No. 162059)
Facts:
Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana, a University of the Philippines student regent appointed in December 1999, co‑organized the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc., and was charged by the Office of the Ombudsman on July 3, 2003, with estafa for allegedly obtaining a Land Bank check of P15,000,000 from the Office of the President for a renovation project that did not materialize. The Information alleged she, while performing official functions and taking advantage of her position, conspired with her brother to defraud the government; her motion to quash the Information was denied by the Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, on November 14, 2003, and its denial of reconsideration was affirmed February 4, 2004.
Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari asserting lack of Sandiganbayan jurisdiction because (a) estafa is outside its purview, (b) she is not a public officer, (c) the offense was not committed in relation to her office, and (d) the funds came from President Estrada personally; the Supreme Court resolved the petition.
Issues:
- Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction to try the crime of estafa charged in the Information?
- Is Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana a public officer within the jurisdictional provisions of the Sandiganbayan?
- Was the offense alleged committed in relation to petitioner’s office so as to vest jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan?
- Is the source of the P15,000,000 alleged to be private (President Estrada) a jurisdictional bar to the Sandiganbayan’s exercise of jurisdiction?
Ruling:
The petition was denied and dismissed for lack of merit. The Court held that the denial of the motion to quash did not amount to grave abuse of discretion because the Sandiganbayan properly exercised jurisdiction under the statutory framework. The Court found petitioner to be a public officer within P.D. No. 1606, as amended, that the Information sufficiently alleged the offense was committed in relation to her office, and that the asserted private source of the funds was a matter of defense for trial.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that jurisdiction over cases involving public officers is defined by P.D. No. 1606, as amended (now embodied in Section 4 through R.A. No. 8249), not by R.A. No. 3019, and that Section 4(b) plainly extends Sandiganbayan jurisdiction to "other offenses" committed by public officials in relation to their office, which includes estafa. The Court construed the statute as a whole, agreed with the Sandiganbayan that a member of the Board of Regents performs functions akin to a board of trustees and therefore falls within Section 4(A)(1)(g), held that compensation is not essential to public office, and ruled that factual defenses like the source of funds must be litigated at trial rather than resolved by a motion to quash.
Doctrine:
- The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is determined by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and subsequent statutes, not by R.A. No. 3019.
- Under Section 4(b) of P.D. No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction over "other offenses" — including estafa — when committed by public officers in relation to their office.
- Membership in the Board of Regents of a state university renders a person a public officer for purposes of Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under Section 4(A)(1)(g).
- Compensation or salary grade is not an essential element of a public office.
- Jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the Information; questions of fact such as the source of funds are defenses to be tried on the merits.
- An order denying a motion to quash is not ordinarily correctible by certiorari unless the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion.