HANNAH EUNICE D.

SERANA v SANDIGANBAYAN and People

FACTS:

Petitioner, Hanna Serana was a senior student in UP-Cebu. She was appointed by President. Estrada, 21
Dec. 1999 as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term starting 1 Jan. 2000 and ending 31 Dec.
2000. In early 2000, Serana discussed with Pres. Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP-
Diliman. Serana and her siblings and relatives registered with the SEC the Office of the Student Regent
Foundation, Inc (OSRFI). One of the projects of OSRFI was the renovation of the Vinzon Hall Annex, in
support of the project Pres. Estrada, gave 15million as financial assistance for the proposed renovation.

However, such renovation failed to materialize. The succeeding student regents Kristine Clare Bugayong,
Christine Jill De Guzman, Sec. Gen. of the KASAMA sa UP filed a complaint for Malversation of Public
Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman. Subsequently the Ombudsman found probable
cause to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa.

Serana moved to quash the information on the ground that the Sandiganbayan does not have
jurisdiction over the crime of estafa and over her person in her capacity as UP Student Regent.

Petitioner likewise posited that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over her person. She claimed that
as a student regent, she was not a public officer since she merely represented her peers, in contrast to
the other regents whot held their positions in an ex officio capacity. She added that she was a simple
student and did not receive any salary as a student regent.

She further contended that she had no power or authority to receive monies or funds. She claimed such
power was vested with the Board of Regents (BOR) as a whole. Since 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, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan citing
the case of Soller v. Sandiganbayan.

The Ombudsman opposed the motion.It disputed petitioner's interpretation of the law. Section 4(b) of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606 clearly contains the catch-all phrase "in relation to office," thus, the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the charges against petitioner. In the same breath, the prosecution
countered that the source of the money is a matter of defense. It should be threshed out during a full-
blown trial.

According to the Ombudsman, petitioner, despite her protestations, was a public officer. As a member
of the BOR, she hads the general powers of administration and exercises the corporate powers of UP.
Based on Mechem's definition of a public office, petitioner's stance that she was not compensated,
hence, thus not a public officer, is erroneous. Compensation is not an essential part of public office.
Parenthetically, compensation has been interpreted to include allowances. By this definition, petitioner
was compensated.

The Sandiganbayan denied, the motion to quash of Serana. Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioner Serana raised four issues:

1. Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crime of estafa

RULING:

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A. No. 3019, as
amended

4.  Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486. It was, in turn, amended by P.D. No. 1606, which
expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. P.D. No. 1606 was later amended by P.D. No. 1861.
R.A. No. 7975 made succeeding amendments to P.D. No. 1606, which was again amended by R.A. No.
8249. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is now contained in Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249.

5.  Upon the other hand, R.A. No. 3019 is a penal statute which 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 R.A. No. 3019, all prosecutions for violation of the said law should be filed
with the Sandiganbayan. R.A. No. 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the cases over which the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. In fact, Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019, erroneously cited by petitioner,
deals not with the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but with prohibition on private individuals.

6.  In fine, the two statutes differ in that P.D. No. 1606, as amended, defines the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan while R.A. No. 3019, as amended, defines graft and corrupt practices and provides for
their penalties.

Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa

7.  In contending that estafa is not among those crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, petitioner
isolated the first paragraph of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, without regard to the succeeding paragraphs
of the said provision. Petitioner's interpretation lies in direct opposition to the rule that a statute
must be interpreted as a whole under the principle that the best interpreter of a statute is the statute
itself. Optima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statutum. The intention of the legislator must be
ascertained from the whole text of the law and every part of the act is to be taken into view.

8.  Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 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.

9.  Evidently, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in
relation to their office. We 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. (see Bondoc vs. Sandiganbayan; Perlas, Jr. vs. People)
 

UP student regent is a public officer

10.  The 1987 Constitution does not define who are public officers. Rather, the varied definitions and
concepts are found in different statutes and jurisprudence.

11.  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 benefit
of the public. (Mechem) The right to hold a public office 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. There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an
office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices 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. (see Aparri vs. Court of Appeals; Laurel vs. Desierto)

12.  Petitioner claims that she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27. This is bereft of merit. It
is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan
also has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No. 1606. 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. Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provision of law.

13.  Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 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. We find no reason to disturb the findings of the
Sandiganbayan that Petitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the Board
of Regent (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.

14.  As to petitioner's claim that she does not receive a salary as UP Student Regent, it is well
established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely
incidental to the public office.

15.  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. The administration of the UP is a sovereign function in line
with Article XIV of the Constitution. 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. Petitioner is therefore a public officer by express mandate of P.D.
No. 1606 and jurisprudence.

The offense charged was committed in relation to public office, according to the Information

16.  According to petitioner, she had no power or authority to act without the approval of the BOR.
She adds there was no Board Resolution issued by the BOR authorizing her to contract with then
President 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 and not in relation to public office.

17.  It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information.  More than
that, jurisdiction 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. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent
almost entirely upon the whims of defendant or respondent.

18.  In the case at bench, the information alleged, in no uncertain terms that petitioner, being then a
student regent of U.P., "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 x x x."

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

19.  It is contended that the amount came from President Estrada's private funds and not from the
government coffers.

20.  The information alleges that the funds came from the Office of the President and not its then
occupant, President Estrada. The Court sustains the Sandiganbayan observation that the source of the
P15 million is a matter of defense that should be ventilated during the trial on the merits of the
instant case.