Serana vs Sandiganbayan (Remedial Law)

Hannah Serana

v.

 Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008

FACTS:

Serana was a senior student of UP-Cebu who was also appointed by Pres. Estrada as student regent of UP to serve a one-year term from Jan.1, 2000 to Dec. 31, 2000. On Sept. 2000, petitioner together with her siblings and relatives, registered with the SEC the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc (OSFRI). On of the projects of the OSFRI was the renovation of Vinzons Hall in UP Diliman, and Pres. Estrada gave P15M as financial assistance for the said project. The source of funds, according to the information, was the Office of the President.

However, the renovation failed to materialize. The succeeding student regent and system-wide alliances of students conseguently filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Ombudsman. After due investigation, the Ombudsman instituted a criminal case against Serana and her brother, charging them of Estafa.

Serana moved to quash the Information, contending that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the offense charged nor over her person in her capacity as UP student regent. She contends that Estafa falls under Crimes Against Property and not on the chapter on Crimes Committed by Public Officers, only over which, she argues, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Furthermore, she argues that it was not the governement that was duped, but Pres. Estrada, because the money came from the Office of the President and not from government funds. As to jurisdiction over her person, she contends that as a UP student regent, she is not a public officer since she merely represents her peers, in contrast to the other regents who held their positions in an ex officio capacity.

The Sandiganbayan denied her motion for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense charged and over Serana

HELD:

YES. Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan; Crime of Estafa. Plainly, estafa is one of those felonies within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, subject to the twin requirements that: 1) the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of PD No. 1606, as amended, and that; 2) The offense is committed in relation to their office.

It is well-established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office. Delegation of sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes one a public officer.

A UP Student Regent is a Public Officer. A public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed or enduring at the pleasure of the power, an individual is interested with some portion of sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public.

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan covers Board of Regents. The Sandiganbayan, also has jurisdiction over the other officers enumerated in PD No. 1606. In Geduspan v. People, the SC held that while the first part of Sec. 4(A) covers only officials with Salary grade 27 and higher but who are by express provisions of law placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provisions of law. Sec. 4(A)(1)(g) of PD No. 1606 explicitly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors and trustees, or manager of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities, or educational foundations. Petitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the Board of Regents performs functions similar to those of a board of trustee of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by PD No. 1606.