G.R. No. 162059 - Serana vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 162059)

Factual Background

Petitioner was a senior student at the University of the Philippines and was appointed Student Regent by then President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Early in 2000 she discussed renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex, and on September 4, 2000 she and relatives registered the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). One declared project of OSRFI was the renovation. The information alleged that President Estrada, through the Office of the President, gave OSRFI P15,000,000.00 as financial assistance for that purpose, but the renovation did not occur and the funds were allegedly misappropriated.

Criminal Information and Allegations

The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an information in the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 27819, charging petitioner and her brother, Jade Ian D. Serana, with estafa under Paragraph 2(a), Article 315, Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that petitioner, as a high-ranking public officer then serving as Student Regent, used her official position to request the P15,000,000.00 from the Office of the President, that the check was delivered to the accused, that the check was encashed by her brother, and that the funds were misappropriated to their personal use, to the damage and prejudice of the government.

Motion to Quash and Petitioner's Contentions

Petitioner moved to quash the information on four principal grounds: (a) that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over the offense of estafa; (b) that she was not a public officer because she did not receive salary and only represented students; (c) that the alleged offense was not committed in relation to her office because she lacked authority to receive funds absent Board of Regents approval; and (d) that the P15,000,000.00 allegedly came from President Estrada personally and not from government coffers.

Prosecution and Ombudsman Response

The Office of the Ombudsman and the prosecution opposed the motion to quash. They maintained that jurisdiction is governed by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, including the catch-all phrase in Section 4(b) conferring jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officials in relation to their office. They argued the alleged source of the funds was a matter of defense to be proved at trial. The Ombudsman also asserted that petitioner, as a member of the Board of Regents, exercised the general administrative and corporate powers of the university and thus met the definition of a public officer.

Sandiganbayan Resolution and Rationale

The Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, denied the motion to quash in a Resolution dated November 14, 2003 and later denied reconsideration. The court reasoned that jurisdiction is not limited to offenses enumerated in Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code and that Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 (amending P.D. No. 1606) expressly gives the Sandiganbayan exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving officials enumerated in Section 4(A), including presidents, directors or trustees of state universities, and over other felonies committed by such public officials in relation to their office under Section 4(B). The Sandiganbayan found that the Board of Regents performs functions analogous to a board of trustees and that petitioner, as a member, fell within the statute’s enumerated officials. The court held that the source of the funds was a factual issue for trial.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner sought certiorari, alleging that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to quash and in failing to dismiss the information. Petitioner renewed the four principal arguments previously presented below.

Procedural Correctability of the Motion to Quash by Certiorari

The Court observed that as a general rule an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not correctible by certiorari, and that the ordinary remedy is to plead or go to trial and reiterate defenses on appeal. The Court acknowledged recognized exceptions where denial of a motion to quash is reviewable by certiorari if the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Applying those principles, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan and therefore proceeded to adjudicate the merits.

Statutory Framework Governing Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction

The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is determined by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and not by R.A. No. 3019, which defines graft and corrupt practices but does not enumerate the court’s jurisdiction. The Court traced the legislative history, noted amendments by P.D. No. 1861, R.A. No. 7975, and R.A. No. 8249, and quoted the operative provisions of Section 4 as amended, including subsection (A)(1)(g) and subsection (B), which vests jurisdiction over officials enumerated and over other felonies committed by such public officials in relation to their office.

Estafa as an Offense Within Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction

Interpreting Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, the Court explained that the provision’s catch-all language embraces other felonies committed by the public officials enumerated in Section 4(A) in relation to their office. The Court held that there was no sound reason to exclude estafa from those other felonies, and it relied on prior decisions such as Perlas, Jr. v. People and Bondoc v. Sandiganbayan to affirm that estafa committed by public officials in relation to their office falls within the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive original jurisdiction.

Status of the Student Regent as a Public Officer

The Court addressed petitioner’s contention that she was not a public officer because she received no salary. The Court reviewed jurisprudential definitions of a public office, citing Mechem and cases including Laurel v. Desierto, and concluded that public office is not defined solely by compensation. The Court accepted the Sandiganbayan’s finding that the Board of Regents exercises general powers of administration and corporate powers akin to a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation, and therefore that a member of the Board, including the Student Regent, is a public officer within the ambit of Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606.

Relation of the Alleged Offense to Office and Allegations in the Information

The Court reiterated the settled rule that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information. The information explicitly alleged that petitioner, as Student Regent, committed the offense while in the performance of her offic

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 162059)

Parties and Posture

Hannah Eunice D. Serana was the Petitioner before the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 162059.
Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines were the Respondents in the certiorari petition.
The petition assailed Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division Resolutions denying Petitioner’s motion to quash the Information and denying her motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner sought relief by way of certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Key Facts

Petitioner was a student regent of the University of the Philippines appointed to serve from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000.
Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI) was registered with the SEC on September 4, 2000, with one project being renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex.
A Land Bank check for Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00) dated October 24, 2000 was allegedly delivered by the Office of the President to OSRFI for the renovation project.
The renovation project did not materialize and succeeding student leaders filed a complaint for malversation with the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman found probable cause and the Special Prosecution filed an Information charging Petitioner and her brother with estafa under Paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a motion to quash the Information on jurisdictional grounds and for lack of qualification as a public officer.
The Ombudsman opposed the motion and contended that jurisdictional questions and source of funds were factual matters for trial.
The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash in a Resolution dated November 14, 2003.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on November 19, 2003, which the Sandiganbayan denied with finality on February 4, 2004.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Issues Presented

Whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction to try Petitioner on the charge of estafa.
Whether Petitioner qualified as a public officer within the meaning of the statute conferring Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.
Whether the offense as alleged in the Information was committed in relation to Petitioner’s office.
Whether the source of the funds (allegedly President Estrada’s private funds) placed the offense outside Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner contended that the Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction over estafa because estafa is grouped under Title X, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, not Title VII, Book II.
Petitioner alleged that she was not a public officer because she received no salary, was a student who paid tuition, and did not occupy a Salary Grade 27 position.
Petitioner argued that the acts were done in a private capacity because she had no authority to receive funds without Board of Regents approval.
Petitioner asserted that the P15,000,000 came from President Estrada personally and not from government coffers, making the People not the aggrieved party.

Respondent’s Contentions

The Ombudsman maintained that jurisdiction is governed by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and that Section 4(b) contains the catch-all phrase “in relation to their office,” thereby vesting the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over estafa committed by public officers in relation to office.
The Ombudsman contended that the alleged source of the funds was a matter of defense to be resolved at trial.
The Ombudsman argued that Petitioner, as a member of the Board of Regents, exercised governance functions akin to a board of trustees and thus was a public officer within Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended.
The Ombudsman asserted that compensation is not an essential element of a public office under prevailing jurisprudence.

Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied