Case Summary (G.R. No. 162059)
Information and Charges
The Information alleges that petitioner, a “high-ranking public officer” in official capacity, misrepresented the renovation project to President Estrada, obtained a ₱15 million check from the Office of the President, and, with her brother, misappropriated the funds for personal use, contrary to Article 315(2)(a) RPC.
Petitioner's Motion to Quash and Arguments
Petitioner moved to quash, contending: 1) Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction over estafa (a property crime under Title X, RPC); 2) as student regent she is not a public officer, receives no salary, and lacks authority to receive funds; 3) funds came from Estrada personally, not government coffers; 4) R.A. No. 3019, not P.D. No. 1606, governs jurisdiction and does not list estafa.
Ombudsman's Opposition
The Ombudsman argued that P.D. No. 1606, as amended, grants Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over “other offenses” by public officers in relation to office (Sec. 4[b]). It also maintained the source-of-funds issue is a defense for trial, and petitioner was a public officer by virtue of Board of Regents membership with administrative and corporate powers.
Sandiganbayan Resolutions
On November 14, 2003, and February 4, 2004, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash and reconsideration. It held that Section 4.A(1)(g) of R.A. No. 8249 explicitly covers presidents, directors, or trustees of state universities; that jurisdiction extends to estafa under Section 4(b); that petitioner fell within these categories; and that source-of-funds is a trial defense.
Issue on Appeal
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by refusing to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense, the person of petitioner, and because the funds allegedly came from President Estrada personally.
Certiorari Remedy and Grave Abuse Standard
The Supreme Court held that interlocutory denial of motions to quash is generally not correctible by certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion. No such abuse was shown: the Sandiganbayan acted within its statutory jurisdictional grant.
Statutory Basis of Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction stems from P.D. No. 1606 (June 1978), as amended by P.D. No. 1861 (1983), R.A. No. 7975 (1995), and R.A. No. 8249 (1997). R.A. No. 3019 defines graft offenses but does not set court jurisdiction; Section 4 of R.A. 3019 addresses prohibited private-person conduct, not Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.
Scope of Jurisdiction Under P.D. No. 1606 as Amended
Section 4.A lists high-ranking officials (Salary Grade 27-plus and specified categories) including “presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of state universities.” Section 4.B then covers “other offenses” (including estafa) committed by these officials in relation to their office.
Applicability of Jurisdictional Provisions to Estafa
Estafa is a “felony” under the RPC. Under Section 4.B, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses when committed by public officers listed in Section 4.A and in relation to office. Precedents (Perlas Jr. v. People; Bondoc v. Sandiganbayan) confirm jurisdiction over estafa by state-instrumentality directors.
Status of Petitioner as Public Officer
Consistent with jurisprudence (Mechem; Laurel v. Desierto; Aparri v. CA), a public office is a law-created authority to exercise sovereign functions for public benefit. As member of UP’s Board of Regents—vested with corporate and administrative powers—petitioner fits Section 4.A(1)(g)’s definition. Compensation is incidental and not essential to office status.
Relation of Offense to Official Functions
The Information expressly alleges the estafa was committed “while in
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 162059)
Facts and Antecedents
- Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student at the University of the Philippines–Cebu and an “Iskolar ng Bayan” (government scholar).
- On December 21, 1999, then-President Joseph Estrada appointed her as Student Regent of UP for the term January 1 to December 31, 2000.
- In early 2000, petitioner discussed with President Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman.
- On September 4, 2000, petitioner and her relatives registered the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI) with the SEC; one project was the Vinzons Hall Annex renovation.
- President Estrada gave P15,000,000.00 as financial assistance to OSRFI; the source of funds was disputed.
- The renovation did not materialize; succeeding student regent and KASAMA sa U.P. officials filed a complaint for malversation before the Ombudsman.
- On July 3, 2003, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa (Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. 27819).
Charge and Information
- The Information, under Art. 315(2)(a) RPC, alleges petitioner, as UP Student Regent, abused her office by falsely representing to President Estrada that Vinzons Hall would be renovated and renamed “President Joseph Ejercito Estrada Student Hall.”
- She requested P15,000,000.00 from the Office of the President; Land Bank Check No. 91353 was issued on October 24, 2000, encashed by her brother on October 25, 2000, and misappropriated.
- The Information emphasizes the offense was committed “in relation to her office” and by “taking advantage of her position.”
Motion to Quash and Jurisdictional Challenge
- Petitioner moved to quash, arguing:
• The Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction over estafa (a Title X, Book II RPC crime, not in Title VII, Book II).
• The P15M came from President Estrada personally, not government coffers.
• As a student regent, she was not a public officer: she received no salary, did not hold a Grade 27 position, and had no authority to receive funds (BOR as a whole held that power).
• Cited Soller v. Sandiganbayan for the proposition that her functions fell outside Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.
Prosecution and Ombudsman Opposition
- The Ombudsman replied:
• Jurisdiction is governed by