Hannah Eunice D. Serana vs. Sandiganbayan

HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA v SANDIGANBAYAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

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

Nature: Petition for certiorari assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, denying petitioners motion to quash the information and her motion for reconsideration.

Keyword: ESTAFA, Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

Facts: Hannah Serana was appointed by former President Estrada as a student regent of UP Cebu, to serve a one-year term. President Estrada gave P15,000,000.00 to the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. The Ombudsman filed estafa case against her before the Sandiganbayan. She moved to quash the information. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent because the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over estafa; the petitioner is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office; and the funds in question personally came from President Estrada, not from the government. As to jurisdiction over her person, she contends that as a UP student regent, she is not a public officer who held the position in an ex officio capacity.

Issue:  Whether the petitioner can be charged of estafa in the Sandiganbayan?

Ruling:

Petitioner can be charged of estafa as provided in Section 4(B) of P.D.  No.  1606. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office.  Also the Sandiganbayan see no plausible or sensible reason to exclude estafa as one of the offenses included in Section 4(bB) of P.D.  No.  1606.  Plainly, estafa is one of those other felonies.  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 P.D.  No.  1606, as amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.

As to the issue of whether or not petitioner is a public officer. It was held in Laurel vs Desierto, that 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 benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.

Since BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606 the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office. Hence, Petitioner is a public officer by express mandate of P.D.No. 1606 and jurisprudence.