HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, petitioner, vs. 1.
r, vs. 1. Preliminarily, the denial of a motion to quash is not
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents; REYES, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner was a senior student of UP-Cebu (gov’t scholar)
and was appointed by Estrada as a student regent of UP
(one-year term). Petitioner proposed the renovation of
Vinzons Hall Annex in UPD. She registered the OSRFI with the
SEC one of the projects of which was said renovation.
Estrada gave P15m budget for the project which came from
the Office of the President. The project failed to materialize
and the subsequent student regent (Kristine Clare
Bugayong), and Secretary Generral of KASAMA sa UP
(alliance of SCs) filed a complaint for Malversation of Public
funds and Property with the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner and
her brother for estafa. Petitioner moved to quash on the
grounds that:
- The Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction
over the offense charged. (OB – PD 1606 contains
the catch-all phrase “in relation to office”)
- It was Estrada, not the government, that was
duped (SB – matter of defense that should be
ventilated during the trial on the merits)
- SB had no jurisdiction over her person, as a
student regent, she was not a public officer. No
salary. (OB - Compensation not essential, it
includes allowances)
- She has no power to receive funds, it was the
Board of Regents as a whole. not alleged that it
was her official function to receive funds. (OB - Pet
had general powers of administration and
corporate powers of UP).
Motion to quash denied. MR also denied. Pet brought
certiorari to SC (to which the SC denied)
ISSUE:
CAN the Sandiganbayan try a government scholar accused,
along with her brother, of swindling government funds?
RULING:
interpreter of a statute is the statute itself. Optima statuti
correctible by certiorari.
When a motion to quash in a criminal case is denied, the
remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but for petitioners to
go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special
defenses invoked in their motion to quash. The reason for
this is to avoid multiplicity of appeals. The exception is if the
court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion. Examples: lack of jurisdiction, lack of
jurisdiction over the offense, improper venue, bar by prior
judgment, Statute of Frauds, motion to quash based on
double jeopardy, denial based on prescription. SB DID NOT
COMMIT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
2. The jurisdiction of the SB is set by PD 1606, as amended,
not by RA 2019, as amended
Petitioner refers to sec. 4 of RA 3019 yet quotes sec. 4 of PD
1606. Court refuses to write this off as a mere clerical of
typographical error because the petitioner repeated this
claim twice despite corrections made by SB. It is PD 1606
rather thatn RA 3019 that determined the jurisdiction of the
SB. PD 1486 created SB; PD 1606 amended the prior and
expanded the jurisdiction of SB. 1606 was later amended by
PD 1861 further altering the SB jurisdiction. RA 7975
amended 1606 and the prior was later on amended by RA
8249. As it now stands the SB has jurisdiction over the
following: (see sec. 4)
RA 3019 represses certain acts of public officers and private
persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices.
Pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 3019, all prosecutions for
violation of the said law should be filed with the
Sandiganbayan. 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.
3. SB has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa.
In claiming that estafa is not among those crimes cognizable
by the SB, the petitioner isolated the first paragraph of Sec.
4 of PD 1606. Apply Interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper
fienda est, ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum. Where
there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid
inconvenience and absurdity is to be adopted. Every part of
the act is to be taken into view. A statute must be
interpreted as a whole under the principle that the best
interpretatrix est ipsum statutum.
SB has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public
officials in relation to their office. Estafa is one of those other
felonies. 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.
4. Petitioner UP student regent is a public officer.
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.
Second part of Sec. 4(a)(1)(g) 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. “Presidents,
directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations.”
Moreover, it is well established that compensation is not an
essential element of public office. At most, it is merely
incidental to the public office. Also, the administration of UP
is a sovereign function.
5. The offense charged was committed in relation to public
office, according to the information.
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.
6. Source of funds is a defense that should be raised during
trial on the merits.
The information alleges that the funds came from the Office
of the President and not it’s the occupant, President Joseph
Ejercito Estrada.
*Petitioner’s counsel was urged to observe Canon 10 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 10.02 of
the Rules stating that a lawyer shall not misquote or
misrepresent. He misquoted Sec. 4 of PD 1606.