SERENA vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE

G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008

FACTS

1. December 21, 1999: Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana (senior student;

government scholar since UP-Cebu is a state university) was appointed by then
Pres. Estrada as a student regent of UP to serve a 1yr term (January 1, 2000 -
ending on December 31, 2000).
2. Sept. 4, 2000: Petitioner, along with her siblings and relatives, registered with the
the Securities and Exchange Commission the Office of the Student Regent
Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). One of OSFRI’s projects was the renovation of Vinzons
Hall Annex.
3. Pres. Estrada gave 15M to OSRFI as financial assistance for the project.
4. The project failed to materialize.
5. Kristine Clare Bugayong (succeeding student regent) and Christine Jill de Guzman
(SecGen, KASAMA sa UP) filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds
and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman.
6. July 3, 2003: Ombudsman, after due investigation, found probable cause to indict
petitioner and her brother, Jade Ian, for estafa. The Information reads:

That on October, 24, 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court…HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, a
high-ranking public officer, being then the Student Regent of the University of the Philippines,
Diliman, Quezon City, while in the performance of her official functions, committing the offense in
relation to her office and taking advantage of her position, with intent to gain, conspiring with her
brother, JADE IAN D. SERANA, a private individual, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously defraud the government by falsely and fraudulently representing to former President
Joseph Ejercito Estrada that the renovation of the Vinzons Hall of the University of the Philippines
will be renovated and renamed as "President Joseph Ejercito Estrada Student Hall," and for which
purpose accused HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA requested the amount
of…P15,000,000.00…from the Office of the President, and the latter relying and believing on said
false pretenses and misrepresentation gave and delivered to said accused Land Bank Check No.
91353 dated October 24, 2000 in the amount of FIFTEEN MILLION PESOS (P15,000,000.00),
which check was subsequently encashed by accused Jade Ian D. Serana on October 25, 2000 and
misappropriated for their personal use and benefit, and despite repeated demands made upon the
accused for them to return aforesaid amount, the said accused failed and refused to do so to the
damage and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid amount.

7. Petitioner moved to quash the information

a. SB does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her
person, in her capacity as UP student regent.
i. RA No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, does not vest SB with
jurisdiction over crimes or offenses under Title X, Chapter VI (Crimes
Against Property), Book II of the RPC such as Estafa.
b. Even assuming that she received the 15M, that amount came from Estrada,
and not from the coffers of the government.
c. SB had no jurisdiction over her person.
i. As a student regent, she was not a public officer since she merely
 represented her peers.
ii. She was a student and did not receive any salary as a student
regent.
iii. She had no power or authority to receive monies or funds. Such
power was vested with the Board of Regents (BOR) as a whole.
iv. It was not alleged in the information that it was among her functions
or duties to receive funds, or that the crime was committed in
connection with her official functions, citing the case of Soller v.
Sandiganbayan.
8. The Ombudsman opposed the motion.
a. It disputed petitioner's interpretation of the law. Section 4 (b) of PD 1606
clearly contains the catch-all phrase "in relation to office," thus, the SB has
jurisdiction over the charges against petitioner.
b. The source of the money is a matter of defense. It should be threshed out
during a full- blown trial.
c. Petitioner was a public officer. As a member of the BOR, she had the
general powers of administration and exercised the corporate powers of UP.
d. Compensation is not an essential part of public office. Parenthetically,
compensation has been interpreted to include allowances.
9. SB denied petitioner's motion for lack of merit.
a. As correctly pointed out by the prosecution, Section 4(b) of RA 8249
provides that the SB also has jurisdiction over other offenses committed by
public officials and employees in relation to their office.
b. Sec. 4(A)(1)(g) of RA 8249 states:

Sec. 4. Jurisdiction — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction

in all cases involving:

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government- owned or controlled

corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. (Italics
supplied)

c. Charter of UP: the BOR exclusively exercises the general powers of

administration and corporate powers in the university, such as:
i. To receive and appropriate to the ends specified by law such sums
as may be provided by law for the support of the university;
ii. To prescribe rules for its own government and to enact for the
government of the university such general ordinances and
regulations, not contrary to law, as are consistent with the purposes
of the university; and
iii. To appoint, on recommendation of the President of the University,
professors, instructors, lecturers and other employees of the
University; to fix their compensation, hours of service, and such other
duties and conditions as it may deem proper; to grant to them in its
discretion leave of absence under such regulations as it may
promulgate, any other provisions of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, and to remove them for cause after an investigation
 and hearing shall have been had.
d. Corporation Law: A Corporation can act only through its board of directors,
or board of trustees in the case of non-stock corporations. The Board is the
governing body of the corporation.
e. Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines is performing functions
similar to those of the Board of Trustees of a non-stock corporation. This
draws to fore the conclusion that being a member of such board, accused-
movant undoubtedly falls within the category of public officials upon whom
this Court is vested with original exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the fact
that she does not occupy a position classified as Salary Grade 27 or higher.
f. The 15M was received from former President Estrada and not from the
coffers of the government, is a matter a defense that should be properly
ventilated during the trial on the merits of this case.
10. November 19, 2003: Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
11. Feb. 4, 2004: Denied with finality.
12. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the SC

ISSUE: WON SB committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or excess
of jurisdiction in not quashing the information and dismissing the case notwithstanding
that it has no jurisdiction over the offense charged in the information.

In her discussion, she reiterates her four-fold argument below, namely: (a) the
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over estafa; (b) petitioner is not a public officer with
Salary Grade 27 and she paid her tuition fees; (c) the offense charged was not committed
in relation to her office; (d) the funds in question personally came from President Estrada,
not from the government.

RULING: No. “The petition cannot be granted”.

I. Preliminarily, the denial of a motion to quash is not correctible by certiorari

Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court: As a general rule, an order denying a

motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and cannot be subject of appeal until final
judgment or order is rendered. The ordinary procedure to be followed in such a case is to
file an answer, go to trial and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from
the final judgment. The same rule applies to an order denying a motion to quash, except
that instead of filing an answer a plea is entered and no appeal lies from a judgment of
acquittal.

This general rule is subject to certain exceptions. If the court, in denying the motion to
dismiss or motion to quash, acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion, then certiorari or prohibition lies. The reason is that it would be unfair to
require the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial if the court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense, or is not the court of proper venue,
or if the denial of the motion to dismiss or motion to quash is made with grave abuse of
discretion or a whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment. In such cases, the ordinary
remedy of appeal cannot be plain and adequate.
II. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by PD 1606, as amended, not by RA
No. 3019, as amended.

Note:

1. Petitioner contends that the jurisdiction of the SB is determined by Section 4 of RA

No. 3019 yet quotes Section 4 of PD 1606, as amended, in her motion to quash
before the SB, in her instant petition for certiorari, and in her memorandum of
authorities.
2. For the jurisdiction of SB, read Sec. 4 of PD 1606, as amended

RA 3019 is a penal statute that represses certain acts of public officers and private
persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.
Pursuant to Section 10 of the RA, all prosecutions for violation of the said law should be
filed with the SB.

R.A. No. 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the cases over which the SB has
jurisdiction. In fact, Section 4 of RA 3019 erroneously cited by petitioner, deals not with
the jurisdiction of the SB but with prohibition on private individuals.

Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals. — (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having
family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take
advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having
some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which
such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by
consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall
include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional
employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit
any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.

PD 1606, as amended: Defines the jurisdiction of the SB

RA 3019, as amended: Defines graft and corrupt practices and provides for their
penalties.

III. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa

- Interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper enda est, ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum

- Where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid inconvenience and
absurdity is to be adopted.
- Optima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statutum - The best interpreter of a statute is
the statute itself (translation not in the full text)

Section 4 (B) of PD 1606 reads:

(B) 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.

SB has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their
office. The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is
committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4 (A) of PD 1606, as
amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.

IV. Petitioner UP student regent is a public officer

Petitioner’s contention: She is not a public officer, and that she did not receive any
salary when she was a UP student regent.

On being a public officer:

Aparri v. Court of Appeals: A public office is the right, authority, and duty created and
conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be exercise by him for the bene􏰃t of the public
([Mechem Public Offices and Officers,] Sec. 1). The right to hold a public o􏰃ce under our
political system is therefore not a natural right. It exists, when it exists at all only because
and by virtue of some law expressly or impliedly creating and conferring it (Mechem Ibid.,
Sec. 64). There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an o􏰃ce, or even an
absolute right to hold o􏰃ce. Excepting constitutional o􏰃ces which provide for special
immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an
office or its salary (42 Am. Jur. 881).

Geduspan v. People: While the first part of Section 4 (A) covers only officials with Salary
Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes other executive officials whose
positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of
law placed under the jurisdiction of the said court.

Section 4 (A) (1) (g) of PD. 1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over
Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls
under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions
similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation.

Moreover, UP performs a legitimate governmental function by providing advanced

instruction in literature, philosophy, the sciences, and arts, and giving professional and
technical training. Moreover, UP is maintained by the Government and it declares no
dividends and is not a corporation created for profit.

On receiving compensation:

At most, compensation is merely incidental to the public office. Delegation of sovereign

functions is essential in the public office. An investment in an individual of some portion
of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the
public makes one a public officer.
V. The offense charged was committed in relation to public office, according to the
Information.

Petitioner’s contention: Assuming that she is a public officer, SB would still not have
jurisdiction over the offense because it was not committed in relation to her office. Also,
she had no power or authority to act without the approval of the BOR. There was no Board
Resolution issued by the BOR authorizing her to contract with then Pres. Estrada; and
that her acts were not ratified by the governing body of the state university. Resultantly,
her act was done in a private capacity.

Jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information, and is not affected by the
pleas or the theories set up by defendant or respondent in an answer, a motion to dismiss,
or a motion to quash.

Again, the Information reads: “…while in the performance of her official functions,
committing the offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position, with
intent to gain, conspiring with her brother…a private individual, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud the government…”

VI. Source of funds is a defense that should be raised during trial on the merits

The Information alleges: “…petitioner requested the amount of Fifteen Million Pesos
(P15,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, from the Office of the President, and the latter
relying and believing on said false pretenses and misrepresentation gave and delivered
to said accused Land Bank Check No. 91353 dated October 24, 2000 in the amount of
Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00)…”

VII. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and honesty to the Court.

Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that “a lawyer
must not misquote of misrepresent”.

Petitioner’s counsel, Renato G. dela Cruz, misrepresented his reference to Section 4 of

PD 1606 as a quotation from Section 4 of RA 3019. A review of his motion to quash, the
instant petition for certiorari and his memorandum, unveils the misquotation.

SC: “We admonish petitioner's counsel to be more careful and accurate in his
citation…The administration of justice would gravely suffer if lawyers do not act with
complete candor and honesty before the courts”