G.R. No.

162059

January 22, 2008

HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and E! "E !# $HE HI"I

INES, respondents. DECISI!N

REYES, R.$., J.% CAN the Sandiganbayan try a government scholaran ** accused, along with her brother, of swindling government funds? &AAARI 'an( )*+*,*n n( Sand*(an'ayan an( *,an( *,-o)ar n( 'ayan, a+ an( -anyan( -a.a+*d, na -a./a .*narara+an(an n( estafa n( .0ra n( 'ayan1 The urisdictional !uestion is posed in this petition for certiorari assailing the "esolutions # of the Sandiganbayan, $ifth %ivision, denying petitioner&s motion to !uash the information and her motion for reconsideration. $20 An+030d0n+, 'etitioner (annah )unice %. Serana was a senior student of the *niversity of the 'hilippines+Cebu. A student of a state university is ,nown as a government scholar. She was appointed by then 'resident -oseph )strada on %ecember .#, #/// as a student regent of *', to serve a one+year term starting -anuary #, .000 and ending on %ecember 1#, .000. 2n the early part of .000, petitioner discussed with 'resident )strada the renovation of 3in4ons (all Anne5 in *' %iliman. . 6n September 7, .000, petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the Securities and )5change Commission the 6ffice of the Student "egent $oundation, 2nc. 86S"$29. 1 6ne of the pro ects of the 6S"$2 was the renovation of the 3in4ons (all Anne5. 7 'resident )strada gave $ifteen :illion 'esos 8'#;,000,000.009 to the 6S"$2 as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. The source of the funds, according to the information, was the 6ffice of the 'resident. The renovation of 3in4ons (all Anne5 failed to materiali4e. ; The succeeding student regent, <ristine Clare =ugayong, and Christine -ill %e >u4man, Secretary >eneral of the <ASA:A sa *.'., a system+wide alliance of student councils within the state university, conse!uently filed a complaint for :alversation of 'ublic $unds and 'roperty with the 6ffice of the 6mbudsman. ? 6n -uly 1, .001, the 6mbudsman, after due investigation, found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother -ade 2an %. Serana for estafa, doc,eted as Criminal Case No. .@A#/ of the Sandiganbayan. @ The 2nformation readsB The undersigned Special 'rosecution 6fficer 222, 6ffice of the Special 'rosecutor, hereby accuses (ANNA( )*N2C) %. S)"ANA and -A%) 2AN %. S)"ANA of the crime of )stafa, defined and penali4ed under 'aragraph .8a9, Article 1#; of the "evised 'enal Code, as amended committed as followsB That on 6ctober, .7, .000, or sometime prior or subse!uent thereto, in Cue4on City, :etro :anila, 'hilippines, and within the urisdiction of this (onorable Court, above+named accused, (ANNA( )*N2C) %. S)"ANA, a high+ran,ing public officer, being then the Student "egent of the *niversity of the 'hilippines, %iliman, Cue4on City, while in the performance of her official functions, committing the offense in relation to her office and ta,ing advantage of her position, with intent to gain, conspiring with her brother, -A%) 2AN %. S)"ANA, a private individual, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the government by falsely and fraudulently representing to former 'resident -oseph ) ercito )strada that the renovation of the 3in4ons (all of the *niversity of the 'hilippines will be renovated and renamed as D'resident -oseph ) ercito )strada Student (all,D and for which purpose accused (ANNA( )*N2C) %. S)"ANA re!uested the amount of $2$T))N :2EE26N ')S6S 8'#;,000,000.009, 'hilippine Currency, from the 6ffice of the 'resident, and the latter relying and believing on said false pretenses and misrepresentation gave and delivered to said accused Eand =an, Chec, No. /#1;1 dated 6ctober .7, .000 in the amount of $2$T))N :2EE26N ')S6S 8'#;,000,000.009, which chec, was subse!uently encashed by accused -ade 2an %. Serana on 6ctober .;, .000 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 pre udice of the government in the aforesaid amount. C6NT"A"F T6 EAG. 8*nderscoring supplied9 'etitioner moved to !uash the information. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any urisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as *' student regent. 'etitioner claimed that "epublic Act 8".A.9 No. 10#/, as amended by ".A. No. A.7/, enumerates the crimes or offenses over which the Sandiganbayan has urisdiction. A 2t has no urisdiction over the crime of estafa./ 2t only has urisdiction over crimes covered by Title 322, Chapter 22, Section . 8Crimes Committed by 'ublic 6fficers9, =oo, 22 of the "evised 'enal Code 8"'C9. Estafa falling under Title H, Chapter 32 8Crimes Against 'roperty9, =oo, 22 of the "'C is not within the Sandiganbayan&s urisdiction. She also argued that it was 'resident )strada, not the government, that was duped. )ven assuming that she received the '#;,000,000.00, that amount came from )strada, not from the coffers of the government. #0 'etitioner li,ewise posited that the Sandiganbayan had no urisdiction over her person. As a student regent, she was not a public officer since she merely represented her peers, in contrast to the other regents who held their positions in an ex officio capacity. She addsed 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. Such power was vested with the =oard of "egents 8=6"9 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 urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan citing the case of Soller v. Sandiganbayan.## The 6mbudsman opposed the motion. #. 2t disputed petitioner&s interpretation of the law. Section 78b9 of 'residential %ecree 8'.%.9 No. #?0? clearly contains the catch -all phrase Din relation to office,D thus, the Sandiganbayan has urisdiction over the charges against petitioner. 2n the same breath, the prosecution countered that the source of the money is a matter of defense. 2t should be threshed out during a full+blown trial. #1 According to the 6mbudsman, petitioner, despite her protestations, iwas a public officer. As a member of the =6", she hads the general powers of administration and e5erciseds the corporate powers of *'. =ased on :echem&s definition of a public office, petitioner&s stance that she was not compensated, hence, not a public officer, is

erroneous. Compensation is not an essential part of public office. 'arenthetically, compensation has been interpreted to include allowances. =y this definition, petitioner was compensated.#7 Sand*(an'ayan D*,.o,*+*on 2n a "esolution dated November #7, .001, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner&s motion for lac, of merit. #; 2t ratiocinatedB The focal point in controversy is the urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over this case. 2t is e5tremely erroneous to hold that only criminal offenses covered by Chapter 22, Section ., Title 322, =oo, 22 of the "evised 'enal Code are within the urisdiction of this Court. As correctly pointed out by the prosecution, Section 78b9 of ".A. A.7/ provides that the Sandiganbayan also has urisdiction over other offenses committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office. $rom this provision, there is no single doubt that this Court has urisdiction over the offense of estafa committed by a public official in relation to his office. Accused+movant&s claim that being merely a member in representation of the student body, she was never a public officer since she never received any compensation nor does she fall under Salary >rade .@, is of no moment, in view of the e5press provision of Section 7 of "epublic Act No. A.7/ which providesB Sec. 7. -urisdiction I The Sandiganbayan shall e5ercise e5clusive original urisdiction in all cases involvingB 8A9 5 5 5 8#9 6fficials of the e5ecutive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as >rade D.@D and higher, of the Compensation and 'osition Classification Act of #/A/ 8"epublic Act No. ?@;A9, specifically includingB 5555 8g9 Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations . 82talics supplied9 2t is very clear from the afore!uoted provision that the Sandiganbayan has original e5clusive urisdiction over all offenses involving the officials enumerated in subsection 8g9, irrespective of their salary grades , because the primordial consideration in the inclusion of these officials is the nature of their responsibilities and functions. 2s accused+movant included in the contemplated provision of law? A meticulous review of the e5isting Charter of the *niversity of the 'hilippines reveals that the =oard of "egents, to which accused+movant belongs, e5clusively e5ercises the general powers of administration and corporate powers in the university, such asB #9 To receive and appropriate to the ends specified by law such sums as may be provided by law for the support of the universityJ .9 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 universityJ and 19 To appoint, on recommendation of the 'resident of the *niversity, professors, instructors, lecturers and other employees of the *niversityJ to fi5 their compensation, hours of service, and such other duties and conditions as it may deem properJ 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. 2t is well+established in corporation law that the corporation can act only through its board of directors, or board of trustees in the case of non+stoc, corporations. The board of directors or trustees, therefore, is the governing body of the corporation. 2t is unmista,ably evident that the =oard of "egents of the *niversity of the 'hilippines is performing functions similar to those of the =oard of Trustees of a non+ stoc, 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 e5clusive urisdiction, regardless of the fact that she does not occupy a position classified as Salary >rade .@ or higher under the Compensation and 'osition Classification Act of #/A/. $inally, this court finds that accused+movant&s contention that the same of '#; :illion was received from former 'resident )strada 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. #? 6n November #/, .001, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. #@ The motion was denied with finality in a "esolution dated $ebruary 7, .007. #A I,,u0 'etitioner is now before this Court, contending that DT() ")S'6N%)NT C6*"T C6::2TT)% >"A3) A=*S) 6$ %2SC")T26N A:6*NT2N> T6 EAC< AN%K6" )HC)SS 6$ -*"2S%2CT26N 2N N6T C*AS(2N> T() 2N$6":AT26N AN% %2S:2S2N> T() CAS) N6TG2T(STAN%2N> T(AT 2S (AS N6 -*"2S%2CT26N 63)" T() 6$$)NS) C(A">)% 2N T() 2N$6":AT26N.D#/ 2n her discussion, she reiterates her four+fold argument below, namelyB 8a9 the Sandiganbayan has no urisdiction over estafaJ 8b9 petitioner is not a public officer with Salary >rade .@ and she paid her tuition feesJ 8c9 the offense charged was not committed in relation to her officeJ 8d9 the funds in !uestion personally came from 'resident )strada, not from the government. !ur Ru)*n( The petition cannot be granted. Preliminarily, the denial of a motion to quash is not correctible by certiorari . Ge would ordinarily dismiss this petition for certiorari outright on procedural grounds. Gell+established is the rule that when a motion to !uash in a criminal case is denied, the remedy is not a petition for certiorari , but for petitioners to go to trial, without pre udice to reiterating the special defenses invo,ed in their motion to !uash. .0"emedial measures

as regards interlocutory orders, such as a motion to !uash, are frowned upon and often dismissed. .# The evident reason for this rule is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action... 2n Newsweek, nc. v. ntermediate !ppellate "ourt,.1 the Court clearly e5plained and illustrated the rule and the e5ceptions, thusB As a general rule, an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and cannot be sub ect of appeal until final udgment or order is rendered. 8Sec. . of "ule 7#9. 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 udgment. The same rule applies to an order denying a motion to !uash, e5cept that instead of filing an answer a plea is entered and no appeal lies from a udgment of ac!uittal. This general rule is sub ect to certain e5ceptions. 2f the court, in denying the motion to dismiss or motion to !uash, acts without or in e5cess of urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, then certiorari or prohibition lies. The reason is that it would be unfair to re!uire the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and e5pense of a trial if the court has no urisdiction over the sub ect matter or offense, or is not the court of proper venue, or if the denial of the motion to dismiss or motion to !uash is made with grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical and capricious e5ercise of udgment. 2n such cases, the ordinary remedy of appeal cannot be plain and ade!uate. The following are a few e5amples of the e5ceptions to the general rule. 2n #e $esus v. %arcia 8#/ SC"A ;;79, upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on lac, of urisdiction over the sub ect matter, this Court granted the petition for certiorari and prohibition against the City Court of :anila and directed the respondent court to dismiss the case. 2n &ope' v. "ity $udge 8#A SC"A ?#?9, upon the denial of a motion to !uash based on lac, of urisdiction over the offense, this Court granted the petition for prohibition and en oined the respondent court from further proceeding in the case. 2n Enri(ue' v. )acadaeg 8A7 'hil. ?@79, upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on improper venue, this Court granted the petition for prohibition and en oined the respondent udge from ta,ing cogni4ance of the case e5cept to dismiss the same. 2n )analo v. )ariano 8?/ SC"A A09, upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on bar by prior udgment, this Court granted the petition for certiorari and directed the respondent udge to dismiss the case. 2n *uviengco v. #acuycuy 8#0; SC"A ??A9, upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the Statute of $rauds, this Court granted the petition for certiorari and dismissed the amended complaint. 2n +acas v. "ariaso 8@. SC"A ;.@9, this Court granted the petition for certiorari after the motion to !uash based on double eopardy was denied by respondent udge and ordered him to desist from further action in the criminal case e5cept to dismiss the same. 2n People v. ,amos 8A1 SC"A ##9, the order denying the motion to !uash based on prescription was set aside on certiorari and the criminal case was dismissed by this Court..7 Ge do not find the Sandiganbayan to have committed a grave abuse of discretion. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. No. 16 6, as amended, not by !.". No. # 1$, as amended. Ge first address petitioner&s contention that the urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is determined by Section 7 of ".A. No. 10#/ 8The Anti+>raft and Corrupt 'ractices Act, as amended9. Ge note that petitioner refers to Section 7 of the said law yet !uotes Section 7 of '.%. No. #?0?, as amended, in her motion to !uash before the Sandiganbayan. .; She repeats the reference in the instant petition for certiorari.? and in her memorandum of authorities. .@ Ge cannot bring ourselves to write this off as a mere clerical or typographical error. 2t bears stressing that petitioner repeated this claim twice despite corrections made by the Sandiganbayan. .A (er claim has no basis in law. 2t is '.%. No. #?0?, as amended, rather than ".A. No. 10#/, as amended, that determines the urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. A brief legislative history of the statute creating the Sandiganbayan is in order. The Sandiganbayan was created by '.%. No. #7A?, promulgated by then 'resident $erdinand ). :arcos on -une ##, #/@A. 2t was promulgated to attain the highest norms of official conduct re!uired of public officers and employees, based on the 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. ./ '.%. No. #7A? was, in turn, amended by '.%. No. #?0? which was promulgated on %ecember #0, #/@A. '.%. No. #?0? e5panded the urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. 10 '.%. No. #?0? was later amended by '.%. No. #A?# on :arch .1, #/A1, further altering the Sandiganbayan urisdiction. ".A. No. @/@; approved on :arch 10, #//; made succeeding amendments to '.%. No. #?0?, which was again amended on $ebruary ;, #//@ by ".A. No. A.7/. Section 7 of ".A. No. A.7/ further modified the urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. As it now stands, the Sandiganbayan has urisdiction over the followingB Sec. 7. -urisdiction. + The Sandiganbayan shall e5ercise e5clusive original urisdiction in all cases involvingB A. 3iolations of "epublic Act No. 10#/, as amended, other ,nown as the Anti+>raft and Corrupt 'ractices Act, "epublic Act No. #1@/, and Chapter 22, Section ., Title 322, =oo, 22 of the "evised 'enal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offenseB 8#9 6fficials of the e5ecutive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as >rade D.@D and higher, of the Compensation and 'osition Classification Act of /A/ 8"epublic Act No. ?@;A9, specifically includingB D 8a9 'rovincial governors, vice+governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department headsJ D 8b9 City mayor, vice+mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department headsJ D8c 9 6fficials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higherJ

D 8d9 'hilippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher ran,J D 8e9 6fficers of the 'hilippine National 'olice while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the ran, of senior superintended or higherJ D 8f9 City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the 6ffice of the 6mbudsman and special prosecutorJ D 8g9 'residents, directors or trustees, or managers of government+owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. D 8.9 :embers of Congress and officials thereof classified as >rade D.@LD and up under the Compensation and 'osition Classification Act of #/A/J D 819 :embers of the udiciary without pre udice to the provisions of the ConstitutionJ D 879 Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commission, without pre udice to the provisions of the ConstitutionJ and D 8;9 All other national and local officials classified as >rade D.@LD and higher under the Compensation and 'osition Classification Act of #/A/. =. 6ther offenses of felonies whether simple or comple5ed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office. C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with )5ecutive 6rder Nos. #, ., #7 and #7+A, issued in #/A?. D 2n cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary >rade D.@LD or higher, as prescribed in the said "epublic Act No. ?@;A, or military and 'N' officer mentioned above, e5clusive original urisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective urisdictions as provided in =atas 'ambansa =lg. #./, as amended. D The Sandiganbayan shall e5ercise e5clusive appellate urisdiction over final udgments, resolutions or order of regional trial courts whether in the e5ercise of their own original urisdiction or of their appellate urisdiction as herein provided. D The Sandiganbayan shall have e5clusive original urisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari , habeas corpus, in unctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate urisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including !uo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under )5ecutive 6rder Nos. #, ., #7 and #7+A, issued in #/A?B 'rovided, That the urisdiction over these petitions shall not be e5clusive of the Supreme Court. D The procedure prescribed in =atas 'ambansa =lg. #./, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may thereafter promulgate, relative to appealsKpetitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. 2n all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the 6ffice of the 6mbudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the 'eople of the 'hilippines, e5cept in cases filed pursuant to )5ecutive 6rder Nos. #, ., #7 and #7+A, issued in #/A?. D 2n 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 ointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall e5ercise e5clusive urisdiction over them. D Any provisions of law or "ules 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 ointly 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 recogni4edB 'rovided, however, That where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but udgment 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 oint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned.D *pon the other hand, ".A. No. 10#/ is a penal statute approved on August #@, #/?0. The said law represses certain acts of public officers and private persons ali,e which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto. 1# 'ursuant to Section #0 of ".A. No. 10#/, all prosecutions for violation of the said law should be filed with the Sandiganbayan. 1. ".A. No. 10#/ does not contain an enumeration of the cases over which the Sandiganbayan has urisdiction. 2n fact, Section 7 of ".A. No. 10#/ erroneously cited by petitioner, deals not with the urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but with prohibition on private individuals. Ge !uoteB Section 7. Prohibition on private individuals. I 8a9 2t shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitali4e or e5ploit or ta,e advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly re!uesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, re!uest or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene. $amily relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word Dclose personal relationD 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. 8b9 2t shall be unlawful for any person ,nowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 1 hereof. 2n fine, the two statutes differ in that '.%. No. #?0?, as amended, defines the urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan while ".A. No. 10#/, as amended, defines graft and corrupt practices and provides for their penalties. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction o%er the offense of estafa. "elying on Section 7 of '.%. No. #?0?, petitioner contends that estafa is not among those crimes cogni4able by the Sandiganbayan. Ge note that in hoisting this argument, petitioner isolated the first paragraph of Section 7 of '.%. No. #?0?, without regard to the succeeding paragraphs of the said provision.

The rule is well+established in this urisdiction that statutes should receive a sensible construction so as to avoid an un ust or an absurd conclusion. 11 nterpretatio talis in ambiguis semper fienda est, ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum . Ghere there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid inconvenience and absurdity is to be adopted. 4un( ,aan 5ayroon( -a)a'uan, an( .a(.a.a)*/ana( ay 2*nd* da.a+ 5a(*n( 5a2*ra. a+ -a+a/a6+a/a. )very section, provision or clause of the statute must be e5pounded by reference to each other in order to arrive at the effect contemplated by the legislature. 17 The intention of the legislator must be ascertained from the whole te5t of the law and every part of the act is to be ta,en into view. 1; 2n other words, 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. 1? -ptima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statutum. An( *,an( 'a+a, ay 5ara.a+ na '*(yan n( -a2u)u(an ,a -anyan( -a'uuan ,a *)a)*5 n( .r*n,*.yo na an( .*na-a5a*na5 na *n+0r.r0+a,yon ay an( 5*,5on( 'a+a,. Section 78=9 of '.%. No. #?0? readsB =. 6ther offenses or felonies whether simple or comple5ed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office. )vidently, the Sandiganbayan has urisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office. Ge see no plausible or sensible reason to e5clude estafa as one of the offenses included in Section 78b=9 of '.%. No. #?0?. 'lainly, estafa is one of those other felonies. The urisdiction is simply sub ect to the twin re!uirements that 8a9 the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 78A9 of '.%. No. #?0?, as amended, and that 8b9 the offense is committed in relation to their office. 2n Perlas, $r. v. People,1@ the Court had occasion to e5plain that the Sandiganbayan has urisdiction over an indictment for estafa versus a director of the National 'ar,s %evelopment Committee, a government instrumentality. The Court held thenB The National 'ar,s %evelopment Committee was created originally as an )5ecutive Committee on -anuary #7, #/?1, for the development of the Cue4on :emorial, Euneta and other national par,s 8)5ecutive 6rder No. 109. 2t was later designated as the National 'ar,s %evelopment Committee 8N'%C9 on $ebruary @, #/@7 8).6. No. ?/9. 6n -anuary /, #/??, :rs. 2melda ". :arcos and Teodoro $. 3alencia were designated Chairman and 3ice+Chairman respectively 8).6. No. 19. %espite an attempt to transfer it to the =ureau of $orest %evelopment, %epartment of Natural "esources, on %ecember #, #/@; 8Eetter of 2mplementation No. 1/, issued pursuant to '% No. A10, dated November .@, #/@;9, the N'%C has remained under the 6ffice of the 'resident 8).6. No. @0/, dated -uly .@, #/A#9. Since #/@@ to #/A#, the annual appropriations decrees listed N'%C as a regular government agency under the 6ffice of the 'resident and allotments for its maintenance and operating e5penses were issued direct to N'%C 8)5h. #0+A, 'erlas, 2tem Nos. ., 19. The Sandiganbayan&s urisdiction over estafa was reiterated with greater firmness in .ondoc v. Sandiganbayan.1A 'ertinent parts of the Court&s ruling in =ondoc readB $urthermore, it is not legally possible to transfer =ondoc&s cases to the "egional Trial Court, for the simple reason that the latter would not have urisdiction over the offenses. As already above intimated, the inability of the Sandiganbayan to hold a oint trial of =ondoc&s cases and those of the government employees separately charged for the same crimes, has not altered the nature of the offenses charged, as estafa thru falsification punishable by penalties higher than prision correccional or imprisonment of si5 years, or a fine of '?,000.00, committed by government employees in conspiracy with private persons, including =ondoc. These crimes are within the e5clusive, original urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. They simply cannot be ta,en cogni4ance of by the regular courts, apart from the fact that even if the cases could be so transferred, a oint trial would nonetheless not be possible. Petitioner &P student regent is a 'ublic officer. 'etitioner also contends that she is not a public officer. She does not receive any salary or remuneration as a *' student regent. This is not the first or li,ely the last time that Ge will be called upon to define a public officer. 2n/han, $r. v. -ffice of the -mbudsman , Ge ruled that it is difficult to pin down the definition of a public officer. 1/The #/A@ Constitution does not define who are public officers. "ather, the varied definitions and concepts are found in different statutes and urisprudence. 2n !parri v. "ourt of !ppeals,70 the Court held thatB A public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fi5ed 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 e5ercise by him for the benefit of the public 80)echem Public -ffices and -fficers,1 Sec. #9. The right to hold a public office under our political system is therefore not a natural right. 2t e5ists, when it e5ists at all only because and by virtue of some law e5pressly or impliedly creating and conferring it 8 )echem bid., Sec. ?79. There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. )5cepting 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 87. Am. -ur. AA#9. 2n &aurel v. #esierto ,7# the Court adopted the definition of :echem of a public officeB DA public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fi5ed 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 e5ercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.D7. 'etitioner claims that she is not a public officer with Salary >rade .@J she is, in fact, a regular tuition fee+paying student. This is li,ewise bereft of merit. 2t is not only the salary grade that determines the urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also has urisdiction over other officers enumerated in '.%. No. #?0?. 2n %eduspan v. People,71 Ge held that while the first part of Section 78A9 covers only officials with Salary >rade .@ and higher, its second part specifically includes other e5ecutive officials whose positions may not be of Salary >rade .@ and higher but who are by e5press provision of law placed under the urisdiction of the said court. 'etitioner falls under the urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by e5press provision of law. 77 Section 78A98#98g9 of '.%. No. #?0? e5plictly vested the Sandiganbayan with urisdiction over 'residents, directors or trustees, or managers of government+owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. 'etitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the =6" performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non+stoc, corporation. 7; =y e5press mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by '.%. No. #?0?. :oreover, it is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. 7? At most, it is merely incidental to the public office.7@ %elegation 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 e5ercised by him for the benefit of the public ma,es one a public officer.7A

The administration of the *' is a sovereign function in line with Article H23 of the Constitution. *' performs a legitimate governmental function by providing advanced instruction in literature, philosophy, the sciences, and arts, and giving professional and technical training. 7/ :oreover, *' is maintained by the >overnment and it declares no dividends and is not a corporation created for profit.;0 The offense charged (as committed in relation to 'ublic office, according to the )nformation. 'etitioner li,ewise argues that even assuming that she is a public officer, the Sandiganbayan would still not have urisdiction over the offense because it was not committed in relation to her office. According to petitioner, she had no power or authority to act without the approval of the =6". She adds there was no =oard "esolution issued by the =6" authori4ing her to contract with then 'resident )stradaJ and that her acts were not ratified by the governing body of the state university. "esultantly, her act was done in a private capacity and not in relation to public office. 2t is a5iomatic that urisdiction is determined by the averments in the information. ;# :ore than that, urisdiction 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 !uash. ;. 6therwise, urisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of defendant or respondent.;1 2n the case at bench, the information alleged, in no uncertain terms that petitioner, being then a student regent of *.'., Dwhile in the performance of her official functions, committing the offense in relation to her office and ta,ing advantage of her position, with intent to gain, conspiring with her brother, -A%) 2AN %. S)"ANA, a private individual, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the government 5 5 5.D 8*nderscoring supplied9 Clearly, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan when it did not !uash the information based on this ground. Source of funds is a defense that should be raised during trial on the merits. 2t is contended anew that the amount came from 'resident )strada&s private funds and not from the government coffers. 'etitioner insists the charge has no leg to stand on. Ge cannot agree. The information alleges that the funds came from the 6ffice of the 'resident and not its then occupant, 'resident -oseph ) ercito )strada. *nder the information, it is averred that Dpetitioner re!uested the amount of $ifteen :illion 'esos 8'#;,000,000.009, 'hilippine Currency, from the 6ffice of the 'resident, and the latter relying and believing on said false pretenses and misrepresentation gave and delivered to said accused Eand =an, Chec, No. /#1;1 dated 6ctober .7, .000 in the amount of $ifteen :illion 'esos 8'#;,000,000.009.D Again, the Court sustains the Sandiganbayan observation that the source of the '#;,000,000 is a matter of defense that should be ventilated during the trial on the merits of the instant case.;7 " la(yer o(es candor, fairness and honesty to the *ourt. As a parting note, petitioner&s counsel, "enato >. dela Cru4, misrepresented his reference to Section 7 of '.%. No. #?0? as a !uotation from Section 7 of ".A. No. 10#/. A review of his motion to !uash, the instant petition forcertiorari and his memorandum, unveils the mis!uotation. Ge urge petitioner&s counsel to observe Canon #0 of the Code of 'rofessional "esponsibility, specifically "ule #0.0. of the "ules stating that Da lawyer shall not mis!uote or misrepresent.D The Court stressed the importance of this rule in Pangan v. ,amos ,;; where Atty %ionisio %. "amos used the name 'edro %.%. "amos in connection with a criminal case. The Court ruled that Atty. "amos resorted to deception by using a name different from that with which he was authori4ed. Ge severely reprimanded Atty. "amos and warned that a repetition may warrant suspension or disbarment. ;? Ge admonish petitioner&s counsel to be more careful and accurate in his citation. A lawyer&s conduct before the court should be characteri4ed by candor and fairness. ;@ The administration of ustice would gravely suffer if lawyers do not act with complete candor and honesty before the courts. ;A 7HERE#!RE, the petition is DENIED for lac, of merit. S! !RDERED. *nares-Santiago, "hairperson, !ustria-)artine', "orona*, Nachura, $$., concur.

#oo+no+0, 3ice Associate -ustice :inita Chico+Na4ario, per "affle dated -anuary #7, .00A. -ustice Chico+Na4ario penned the assailed Sandiganbayan decision, with the concurrence of Associate -ustices :a. Cristina >. Corte4+)strada and Teresita 3. %ia4+=aldos.
*

As it is funded partly by the 'hilippine government and private donations, the *' student shoulders a minimal tuition fee while being provided a wide range of courses and programs.
**

*' also has a Sociali4ed Tuition and $inancial Assistance 'rogram 8ST$A', otherwise ,nown as the 2s,olar ng =ayan 'rogram9, which enables students to avail of discounted tuition fees to full tuition fee waivers and cash subsidies determined according to their income brac,ets. 8www.up.edu.ph.9 "ollo, pp. ;A+?7. 2d. at ;.

2d. 2d. 2d. 2d. at ./. 2d. at 1?+70. 2d. at @+#0. 2d. at 71. 2d. at 77. 2d. at 7;, citing >.". Nos. #77.?#+?., :ay /, .00#, 1;@ SC"A ?@@. 2d. at 7@. 2d. at ;0. 2d. at ;7. 2d. at ;A. 2d. at ?#+?7. 2d. at ?;. 2d. at @7. 2d. at ?.

#0

##

#.

#1

#7

#;

#?

#@

#A

#/

%e los "eyes v. 'eople, >.". No. #1A./@, -anuary .@, .00?, 7A0 SC"A ./7J &ee v. People, >.". No. #1@/#7, %ecember 7, .00., 1/1 SC"A 1/AJ *ap v. ntermediate !ppellate "ourt , >.". No. ?A7?7, :arch .., #//1, ..0 SC"A .7;, .;1, citing !charon v. Purisima , >.". No. .1@1#, -une .@, #/?;, #1 SC"A 10/J.ulaong v. "ourt of !ppeals, >.". No. @A;;;, -anuary 10, #//0, #A# SC"A ?#A.
.0

.#

)arcelo v. #e %u'man , >.". No. E+./0@@, -une ./, #/A., ##7 SC"A ?;@. %o v. "ourt of !ppeals , >.". No. #.A/;7, 6ctober A, #//A, ./@ SC"A ;@;. >.". No. E+?1;;/, :ay 10, #/A?, #7. SC"A #@#. 2d. at #@@+#@/. "ollo, pp. 7.+71. 2d. at A+#0. 2d. at #A.. 2d. at ?.. 'residential %ecree No. #7A?., Ghereas Clause Section 7. $urisdiction. I The Sandiganbayan shall have urisdiction overB 8a9 3iolations of "epublic Act No. 10#/, as amended, otherwise, ,nown as the Anti+>raft and Corrupt 'ractices Act, and "epublic Act No. #1@/J 8b9 Crimes committed by public officers and employees including those employed in government+owned or controlled corporations, embraced in Title 322 of the "evised 'enal Code, whether simple or comple5ed with other crimesJ and 8c9 6ther crimes or offenses committed by public officers or employees, including those employed in government+owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office. The urisdiction herein conferred shall be original and e5clusive if the offense charged is punishable by a penalty higher than prision correccional, or its e!uivalent, e5cept as herein providedJ in other offenses, it shall be concurrent with the regular courts.

..

.1

.7

.;

.?

.@

.A

./

10

2n 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 ointly with said public officers and employees. Ghere an accused is tried for any of the above offenses and the evidence is insufficient to establish the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted and sentenced for the offense proved, included in that which is charged. Any provision of law or the "ules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall, at all times, be simultaneously instituted with, and ointly determined in the same proceeding by, the Sandiganbayan, 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 of such action shall be recogni4edJ 'rovided, however, that, in cases within the e5clusive urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, where the civil action had therefore been filed separately with a regular court but udgment therein has not yet been rendered and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan for consolidation and oint determination with the criminal action, otherwise, the criminal action may no longer be filed with the Sandiganbayan, its e5clusive urisdiction over the same notwithstanding, but may be filed and prosecuted only in the regular courts of competent urisdictionJ 'rovided, further, that, in cases within the concurrent urisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the regular courts, where either the criminal or civil action is first filed with the regular courts, the corresponding civil or criminal action, as the case may be, shall only be filed with the regular courts of competent urisdiction. )5cepted from the foregoing provisions, during martial law, are criminal cases against officers and members of the armed forces in the active service. "epublic Act No. 10#/, Section. #. 2d,., Section. #0. People v. ,ivera, ;/ 'hil. .1? 8#/119. Commissioner of 2nternal "evenue v. T:H Sales, >.". No. A1@1?, -anuary #;, #//., .0; SC"A #A7.

1#

1.

11

17

Aboiti4 Shipping Corporation v. City of Cebu, >.". No. E+#7;.?, :arch 1#, #/?;, #1 SC"A 77/J Eope4 v. )l (ogar $ilipino, 7@ 'hil. .7/ 8#/.;9J Chartered =an, v. 2mperial, 7A 'hil. /1# 8#/.#9.
1;

1?

Eoyola >rand 3illas (omeowners 8South9 v. Court of Appeals, >.". No. ##@#AA, August @, #//@, .@? SC"A ?A#. >.". Nos. A7?1@+1/, August ., #/A/, #@? SC"A ;@. >.". Nos. @##?1+?;, November /, #//0, #/# SC"A .;.. >.". No. #.;./?, -uly .0, .00?, 7/; SC"A 7;., 7;A+7;/. >.". No. E+100;@, -anuary 1#, #/A7, #.@ SC"A .1#, .1@+.1A. 710 'hil. ?;A 8>.". No. #7;1?A. April #., .00.9. Eaurel v. %esierto, i2d. at ?@.+?@1, citing $.". :echem, A Treatise on the Eaw of 'ublic 6ffices and 6fficers, MSec. #. >.". No. #;A#A@, $ebruary ##, .00;, 7;# SC"A #A@. 'residential %ecree No. #?0?, Sec. 78A98#98g9. "ollo, p. ?1. Eaurel v. %esierto, supra note 7#, at >.". No. #7;.?A, April #., .001, 1A# SC"A 7A, ?A@/+?/A0. 2d. 2d.710 'hil. ?;A, ?@. 8.00.9. *niversity of the 'hilippines v. Court of 2ndustrial "elations, #0@ 'hil. A7A 8>.". No. E+#;7#?, April .A, #/?09.. 2d. Eacson v. )5ecutive Secretary, >.". No. #.A0/?, -anuary .0, #///, 10# SC"A ./AJ Eim v. "odrigo,>.". No. E+@?/@7, November #A, #/AA, #?@ SC"A 7A@. Commart 8'hils.9, 2nc. v. Securities N )5change Commission, >.". No. A;1#A, -une 1, #//#, #/A SC"A @1. 2d. "ollo, p. ?7. Adm. Case No. #0;1, September @, #/@/, /1 SC"A A@.

1@

1A

1/

70

7#

7.

71

77

7;

7?

7@

7A

7/

;0

;#

;.

;1

;7

;;

;?

"ollo, p. A/.

$ar )astern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals, >.". Nos. #100?A N #10#;0, 6ctober #, #//A, ./@ SC"A 10, ;#+;.J Albert v. Court of $irst 2nstance of :anila 8=r. 329, >.". No. E+.?1?7, :ay ./, #/?A, .1 SC"A /7A.
;@

;A

Chave4 v. 3iola, Adm. Case No. .#;., April #/, #//#, #/? SC"A #0.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation