Serana v Sandiganbayan January 22, 2008, G.R. 162059 Facts: 1. Hannah Eunice D.

Serana (Serana) was a senior student of UP-Cebu. She was appointed by then President Estrada as student regent to serve a 1-year term from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000. 2. Serana discussed the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman with President Estrada. She, along with her sibling, later registered the Office of the Student Regent Foundation. Inc. (OSRFI) with the SEC. 3. One of the projects of OSRFI was the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex. Pres. Estrada gave P15 million to the OSRFI as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. 4. The renovation failed to materialize. The succeeding student regents consequently filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman against Serana and her brother. 5. After due investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Serana and her brother for Estafa with the Sandiganbayan. 6. Serana moved to quash the information citing the following grounds/claims: a. The Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person. R.A. 3019 enumerates the crimes or offenses over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, and estafa is not one them. b. As a student regent, she was not a public officer, since she only represented her peers, in contrast to other regents who held their positions in ex officio capacity. She did not receive any salary. c. The P15 million did not come from the government but from President Estrada. 7. The Ombudsman opposed the motion. The Sandiganbayan denied her motion to quash. Issue: WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and over the person of the accused. Held: YES. Ratio: The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A. No. 3019, as amended. 1. a. It is P.D. No.1606, as amended, rather than R.A. No. 3019, as amended that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486, promulgated by then President Marcos in order to attain the highest norms of official conduct required of public officers and employees, based on the b. c. d.

concept that public officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency and shall remain at all times accountable to the people. P.D. No. 1486 was amended by P.D. No. 1606, which expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. P.D. No. 1606 was further amended by P.D. No. 1861 further altering the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. R.A. No. 7975, approved on March 30, 1995 made succeeding amendments, which was again amended by R.A. No. 8249

2. At present the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a. Violations of RA 3019; RA 1379; and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II, of the RPC, where at least one of the accused---permanent, acting, or in an interim capacity---occupies government positions enumerated in Section 4(A). b. Other offenses or felonies committed by public officials and employees (enumerated in section 4a) in relation to their office.1

The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. "The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may thereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. "In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.

In civil and criminal cases filed in connection with EO 1, 2, 14, and 14A. 3. If none of the accused is occupying positions corresponding to at least SG 27 or not included in the enumeration, the exclusive original jurisdiction shall be vested in the proper regional court or the mtc, pursuant to BP 129. 4. RA 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the cases over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. 5. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa. a. Estafa is one of those other felonies mentioned in Section 4(B). b. 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. ISSUE #2: WON petitioner, as UP student regent, is a public officer. Held: Yes. Ratio: 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. 1. Petitioner claims that she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; she is, in fact, a regular tuition fee paying student. This is likewise bereft of merit.

c.

2. Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provision of law. 3. The offense charged was committed in relation to public office, according to the Information. a. The information alleged, in no uncertain terms that Serana, being then a student regent of UP, while in the performance of her official functions, committed the offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position. b. Thus there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan when it did not quash the information based on this ground. 4. Source of funds is a defense that should be raised during trial on the merits. a. The information alleges that the funds came from the Office of the President and not its then occupant, President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Under the information, it is averred that petitioner requested the amount 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 (P15,000,000.00). b. The source of the P15,000,000 is a matter of defense that should be ventilated during the trial on the merits of the instant case.

"Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall, at all times, be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned."