GR 162059; (January, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162059 ; January 22, 2008
HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a student regent of the University of the Philippines appointed by then President Joseph Estrada. In 2000, she discussed with President Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex. Subsequently, she and her relatives registered the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI), to which President Estrada gave P15 million from the Office of the President as financial assistance for the renovation. The project failed to materialize. The Ombudsman found probable cause and filed an Information for Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code against Serana and her brother before the Sandiganbayan. The Information alleged that Serana, a high-ranking public officer, committed the offense in relation to her office.
Serana moved to quash the Information, challenging the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. She argued that estafa is not among the crimes over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction under its charter, as it is a crime against property, not one committed by public officers under Title VII of the Revised Penal Code. She also contended she was not a public officer, being an uncompensated student representative without authority to receive funds, and that the money allegedly came from President Estrada personally, not government coffers.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of estafa charged against petitioner and over her person.
RULING
Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. The Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Information. The Information expressly alleged that petitioner, a high-ranking public officer as UP Student Regent, committed estafa “in relation to her office.” Under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249 , the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers “in relation to their office,” which includes crimes under the Revised Penal Code and other statutes, provided the intimate connection between the offense and the official duties is alleged. The charge that she used her official position to defraud the government falls within this scope.
On the issue of petitioner being a public officer, the Court ruled affirmatively. A public office is defined by the delegation of sovereign functions for public benefit, not by compensation. As a member of the UP Board of Regents, petitioner exercised portions of the governmental sovereign power through her participation in the university’s administration, which is a state function. Her appointment by the President and her role in corporate governance of a state university confirm her status as a public officer. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan correctly assumed jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and the offense as charged.