6/14/2017 G.R. No.

162059

TodayisWednesday,June14,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.162059January22,2008

HANNAHEUNICED.SERANA,petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYANandPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.

DECISION

REYES,R.T.,J.:

CAN the Sandiganbayan try a government scholaran** accused, along with her brother, of swindling government
funds?

MAAARI bang litisin ng Sandiganbayan ang isang iskolar ng bayan, at ang kanyang kapatid, na kapwa
pinararatanganngestafangperangbayan?

The jurisdictional question is posed in this petition for certiorari assailing the Resolutions1 of the Sandiganbayan,
FifthDivision,denyingpetitionersmotiontoquashtheinformationandhermotionforreconsideration.

TheAntecedents

PetitionerHannahEuniceD.SeranawasaseniorstudentoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesCebu.Astudentofa
state university is known as a government scholar. She was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada on
December 21, 1999 as a student regent of UP, to serve a oneyear term starting January 1, 2000 and ending on
December31,2000.

Intheearlypartof2000,petitionerdiscussedwithPresidentEstradatherenovationofVinzonsHallAnnexinUP
Diliman.2 On September 4, 2000, petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the Securities and
ExchangeCommissiontheOfficeoftheStudentRegentFoundation,Inc.(OSRFI).3

OneoftheprojectsoftheOSRFIwastherenovationoftheVinzonsHallAnnex.4 President Estrada gave Fifteen

MillionPesos(P15,000,000.00)totheOSRFIasfinancialassistancefortheproposedrenovation.Thesourceofthe
funds,accordingtotheinformation,wastheOfficeofthePresident.

The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize.5 The succeeding student regent, Kristine Clare
Bugayong, and Christine Jill De Guzman, Secretary General of the KASAMA sa U.P., a systemwide alliance of
student councils within the state university, consequently filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and
PropertywiththeOfficeoftheOmbudsman.6

OnJuly3,2003,theOmbudsman,afterdueinvestigation,foundprobablecausetoindictpetitionerandherbrother
Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 27819 of the Sandiganbayan.7 The Information
reads:

TheundersignedSpecialProsecutionOfficerIII,OfficeoftheSpecialProsecutor,herebyaccusesHANNAH
EUNICE D. SERANA and JADE IAN D. SERANA of the crime of Estafa, defined and penalized under
Paragraph2(a),Article315oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedcommittedasfollows:

That on October, 24, 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Metro Manila,
Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,abovenamedaccused,HANNAHEUNICED.
SERANA,a highranking public officer, being then the Student Regent of the University of the Philippines,
Diliman,QuezonCity,whileintheperformanceofherofficialfunctions,committingtheoffenseinrelationto
herofficeandtakingadvantageofherposition,withintenttogain,conspiringwithherbrother,JADEIAND.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 1/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
SERANA,aprivateindividual,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslydefraudthegovernment
byfalselyandfraudulentlyrepresentingtoformerPresidentJosephEjercitoEstradathattherenovationofthe
VinzonsHalloftheUniversityofthePhilippineswillberenovatedandrenamedas"PresidentJosephEjercito
EstradaStudentHall,"andforwhichpurposeaccusedHANNAHEUNICED.SERANArequestedtheamount
of FIFTEEN MILLION PESOS (P15,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, from the Office of the President, and
the latter relying and believing on said false pretenses and misrepresentation gave and delivered to said
accusedLandBankCheckNo.91353datedOctober24,2000intheamountofFIFTEENMILLIONPESOS
(P15,000,000.00),whichcheckwassubsequentlyencashedbyaccusedJadeIanD.SeranaonOctober25,
2000andmisappropriatedfortheirpersonaluseandbenefit,anddespiterepeateddemandsmadeuponthe
accusedforthemtoreturnaforesaidamount,thesaidaccusedfailedandrefusedtodosotothedamageand
prejudiceofthegovernmentintheaforesaidamount.

CONTRARYTOLAW.(Underscoringsupplied)

Petitionermovedtoquashtheinformation.SheclaimedthattheSandiganbayandoesnothaveanyjurisdictionover
theoffensechargedoroverherperson,inhercapacityasUPstudentregent.

Petitioner claimed that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, enumerates the crimes or
offensesoverwhichtheSandiganbayanhasjurisdiction.8Ithasnojurisdictionoverthecrimeofestafa.9Itonlyhas
jurisdictionovercrimescoveredbyTitleVII,ChapterII,Section2(CrimesCommittedbyPublicOfficers),BookIIof
the RevisedPenalCode(RPC).EstafafallingunderTitleX,ChapterVI(CrimesAgainstProperty),BookIIofthe
RPCisnotwithintheSandiganbayansjurisdiction.

She also argued that it was President Estrada, not the government, that was duped. Even assuming that she
receivedtheP15,000,000.00,thatamountcamefromEstrada,notfromthecoffersofthegovernment.10

PetitionerlikewisepositedthattheSandiganbayanhadnojurisdictionoverherperson.Asastudentregent,shewas
notapublicofficersinceshemerelyrepresentedherpeers,incontrasttotheotherregentswhoheldtheirpositions
in an exofficio capacity. She addsed that she was a simple student and did not receive any salary as a student
regent.

Shefurthercontendedthatshehadnopowerorauthoritytoreceivemoniesorfunds.Suchpowerwasvestedwith
theBoardofRegents(BOR)asawhole.Sinceitwasnotallegedintheinformationthatitwasamongherfunctions
or duties to receive funds, or that the crime was committed in connection with her official functions, the same is
beyondthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayancitingthecaseofSollerv.Sandiganbayan.11

TheOmbudsmanopposedthemotion.12Itdisputedpetitionersinterpretationofthelaw.Section4(b)ofPresidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1606 clearly contains the catch all phrase "in relation to office," thus, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdictionoverthechargesagainstpetitioner.Inthesamebreath,theprosecutioncounteredthatthesourceofthe
moneyisamatterofdefense.Itshouldbethreshedoutduringafullblowntrial.13

AccordingtotheOmbudsman,petitioner,despiteherprotestations,iwasapublicofficer.AsamemberoftheBOR,
she hads the general powers of administration and exerciseds the corporate powers of UP. Based on Mechems
definition of a public office, petitioners stance that she was not compensated, hence, not a public officer, is
erroneous. Compensation is not an essential part of public office. Parenthetically, compensation has been
interpretedtoincludeallowances.Bythisdefinition,petitionerwascompensated.14

SandiganbayanDisposition

In a Resolution dated November 14, 2003, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioners motion for lack of merit.15 It
ratiocinated:

ThefocalpointincontroversyisthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanoverthiscase.

ItisextremelyerroneoustoholdthatonlycriminaloffensescoveredbyChapterII,Section2,TitleVII,BookII
oftheRevisedPenalCodearewithinthejurisdictionofthisCourt.Ascorrectlypointedoutbytheprosecution,
Section 4(b) of R.A. 8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other offenses
committedbypublicofficialsandemployeesinrelationtotheiroffice.Fromthisprovision,thereisnosingle
doubtthatthisCourthasjurisdictionovertheoffenseofestafacommittedbyapublicofficialinrelationtohis
office.

Accusedmovantsclaimthatbeingmerelyamemberinrepresentationofthestudentbody,shewasnevera
publicofficersincesheneverreceivedanycompensationnordoesshefallunderSalaryGrade27,isofno
moment,inviewoftheexpressprovisionofSection4ofRepublicActNo.8249whichprovides:

Sec.4.JurisdictionTheSandiganbayanshallexerciseexclusiveoriginaljurisdictioninallcasesinvolving:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 2/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
(A)xxx

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classifiedasGrade"27"andhigher,oftheCompensationandPositionClassificationActof1989(Republic
ActNo.6758),specificallyincluding:

xxxx

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of governmentowned or controlled corporations, state

universitiesoreducationalinstitutionsorfoundations.(Italicssupplied)

ItisveryclearfromtheaforequotedprovisionthattheSandiganbayanhasoriginalexclusivejurisdictionover
alloffensesinvolvingtheofficialsenumeratedinsubsection(g),irrespectiveoftheirsalarygrades,because
the primordial consideration in the inclusion of these officials is the nature of their responsibilities and
functions.

Isaccusedmovantincludedinthecontemplatedprovisionoflaw?

A meticulous review of the existing Charter of the University of the Philippines reveals that the Board of
Regents,towhichaccusedmovantbelongs,exclusivelyexercisesthegeneralpowersofadministrationand
corporatepowersintheuniversity,suchas:1)Toreceiveandappropriatetotheendsspecifiedbylawsuch
sumsasmaybeprovidedbylawforthesupportoftheuniversity2)Toprescriberulesforitsowngovernment
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 university and 3) To appoint, on recommendation of the
PresidentoftheUniversity,professors,instructors,lecturersandotheremployeesoftheUniversitytofixtheir
compensation,hoursofservice,andsuchotherdutiesandconditionsasitmaydeempropertogranttothem
initsdiscretionleaveofabsenceundersuchregulationsasitmaypromulgate,anyotherprovisionsoflawto
the contrary notwithstanding, and to remove them for cause after an investigation and hearing shall have
beenhad.

It is wellestablished in corporation law that the corporation can act only through its board of directors, or
boardoftrusteesinthecaseofnonstockcorporations.Theboardofdirectorsortrustees,therefore,isthe
governingbodyofthecorporation.

ItisunmistakablyevidentthattheBoardofRegentsoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesisperformingfunctions
similar to those of the Board of Trustees of a nonstock corporation. This draws to fore the conclusion that
beingamemberofsuchboard,accusedmovantundoubtedlyfallswithinthecategoryofpublicofficialsupon
whomthisCourtisvestedwithoriginalexclusivejurisdiction,regardlessofthefactthatshedoesnotoccupya
position classified as Salary Grade 27 or higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989.

Finally, this court finds that accusedmovants contention that the same of P15 Million was received from
formerPresidentEstradaandnotfromthecoffersofthegovernment,isamatteradefensethatshouldbe
properlyventilatedduringthetrialonthemeritsofthiscase.16

On November 19, 2003, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.17 The motion was denied with finality in a
ResolutiondatedFebruary4,2004.18

Issue

Petitioner is now before this Court, contending that "THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT QUASHING THE
INFORMATIONANDDISMISINGTHECASENOTWITHSTANDINGTHATISHASNOJURISDICTIONOVERTHE
OFFENSECHARGEDINTHEINFORMATION."19

In herdiscussion,shereiteratesherfourfoldargumentbelow,namely:(a)the Sandiganbayanhasnojurisdiction
overestafa(b)petitionerisnotapublicofficerwithSalaryGrade27andshepaidhertuitionfees(c)theoffense
charged was not committed in relation to her office (d) the funds in question personally came from President
Estrada,notfromthegovernment.

OurRuling

Thepetitioncannotbegranted.

Preliminarily,thedenialofamotionto
quashisnotcorrectiblebycertiorari.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 3/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
We would ordinarily dismiss this petition for certiorari outright on procedural grounds. Wellestablished is the rule
thatwhenamotiontoquashinacriminalcaseisdenied,theremedyisnotapetitionforcertiorari,butforpetitioners
to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses invoked in their motion to quash.20 Remedial
measuresasregardsinterlocutoryorders,suchasamotiontoquash,arefrowneduponandoftendismissed.21The
evidentreasonforthisruleistoavoidmultiplicityofappealsinasingleaction.22

InNewsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court,23 the Court clearly explained and illustrated the rule and the
exceptions,thus:

As a general rule, an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and cannot be subject of
appealuntilfinaljudgmentororderisrendered.(Sec.2ofRule41).Theordinaryproceduretobefollowedin
suchacaseistofileananswer,gototrialandifthedecisionisadverse,reiteratetheissueonappealfrom
thefinaljudgment.Thesameruleappliestoanorderdenyingamotiontoquash,exceptthatinsteadoffiling
ananswerapleaisenteredandnoappealliesfromajudgmentofacquittal.

Thisgeneralruleissubjecttocertainexceptions.Ifthecourt,indenyingthemotiontodismissormotionto
quash,actswithoutorinexcessofjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,thencertiorariorprohibition
lies. The reason is that it would be unfair to require the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and
expenseofatrialifthecourthasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatteroroffense,orisnotthecourtofproper
venue,orifthedenialofthemotiontodismissormotiontoquashismadewithgraveabuseofdiscretionora
whimsicalandcapriciousexerciseofjudgment.Insuchcases,theordinaryremedyofappealcannotbeplain
andadequate.Thefollowingareafewexamplesoftheexceptionstothegeneralrule.

InDe Jesus v. Garcia (19 SCRA 554), upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction
overthesubjectmatter,thisCourtgrantedthepetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionagainsttheCityCourtof
Manilaanddirectedtherespondentcourttodismissthecase.

InLopezv.CityJudge(18SCRA616),uponthedenialofamotiontoquashbasedonlackofjurisdictionover
the offense, this Court granted the petition for prohibition and enjoined the respondent court from further
proceedinginthecase.

InEnriquezv.Macadaeg(84Phil.674),uponthedenialofamotiontodismissbasedonimpropervenue,this
Court granted the petition for prohibition and enjoined the respondent judge from taking cognizance of the
caseexcepttodismissthesame.

InManalov.Mariano(69SCRA80),uponthedenialofamotiontodismissbasedonbarbypriorjudgment,
thisCourtgrantedthepetitionforcertiorarianddirectedtherespondentjudgetodismissthecase.

InYuviengcov.Dacuycuy(105SCRA668),uponthedenialofamotiontodismissbasedontheStatuteof
Frauds,thisCourtgrantedthepetitionforcertiorarianddismissedtheamendedcomplaint.

InTacas v. Cariaso (72 SCRA 527), this Court granted the petition for certiorari after the motion to quash
basedondoublejeopardywasdeniedbyrespondentjudgeandorderedhimtodesistfromfurtheractionin
thecriminalcaseexcepttodismissthesame.

In People v. Ramos (83 SCRA 11), the order denying the motion to quash based on prescription was set
asideoncertiorariandthecriminalcasewasdismissedbythisCourt.24

WedonotfindtheSandiganbayantohavecommittedagraveabuseofdiscretion.

ThejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanis
setbyP.D.No.1606,asamended,notby
R.A.No.3019,asamended.

WefirstaddresspetitionerscontentionthatthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanisdeterminedbySection4ofR.A.
No.3019(TheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct,asamended).WenotethatpetitionerreferstoSection4ofthe
saidlawyetquotesSection4ofP.D.No.1606,asamended,inhermotiontoquashbeforetheSandiganbayan.25
Sherepeatsthereferenceintheinstantpetitionforcertiorari26andinhermemorandumofauthorities.27

Wecannotbringourselvestowritethisoffasamereclericalortypographicalerror.Itbearsstressingthatpetitioner
repeatedthisclaimtwicedespitecorrectionsmadebytheSandiganbayan.28

Her claim has no basis in law. It is P.D. No. 1606, as amended, rather than R.A. No. 3019, as amended, that
determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. A brief legislative history of the statute creating the
Sandiganbayan is in order. The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486, promulgated by then President
FerdinandE.MarcosonJune11,1978.Itwaspromulgatedtoattainthehighestnormsofofficialconductrequiredof
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 4/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
publicofficersandemployees,basedontheconceptthatpublicofficersandemployeesshallservewiththehighest
degreeofresponsibility,integrity,loyaltyandefficiencyandshallremainatalltimesaccountabletothepeople.29

P.D.No.1486was,inturn,amendedbyP.D. No. 1606 which was promulgated on December 10, 1978. P.D. No.
1606expandedthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayan.30

P.D. No. 1606 was later amended by P.D. No. 1861 on March 23, 1983, further altering the Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction.R.A. No. 7975 approved on March 30, 1995 made succeeding amendments to P.D. No. 1606, which
was again amended on February 5, 1997 by R.A. No. 8249. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 further modified the
jurisdictionoftheSandiganbayan.Asitnowstands,theSandiganbayanhasjurisdictionoverthefollowing:

Sec.4.Jurisdiction.TheSandiganbayanshallexerciseexclusiveoriginaljurisdictioninallcasesinvolving:

A.ViolationsofRepublicActNo.3019,asamended,otherknownastheAntiGraftandCorruptPracticesAct,
RepublicActNo.1379,andChapterII,Section2,TitleVII,BookIIoftheRevisedPenalCode,whereoneor
more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a
permanent,actingorinterimcapacity,atthetimeofthecommissionoftheoffense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classifiedasGrade"27"andhigher,oftheCompensationandPositionClassificationActof989(RepublicAct
No.6758),specificallyincluding:

" (a) Provincial governors, vicegovernors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial
treasurers,assessors,engineers,andothercitydepartmentheads

" (b) City mayor, vicemayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors,
engineers,andothercitydepartmentheads

"(c)Officialsofthediplomaticserviceoccupyingthepositionofconsulandhigher

"(d)Philippinearmyandairforcecolonels,navalcaptains,andallofficersofhigherrank

" (e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those
holdingtherankofseniorsuperintendedorhigher

" (f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the
Ombudsmanandspecialprosecutor

" (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of governmentowned or controlled corporations, state
universitiesoreducationalinstitutionsorfoundations.

"(2)MembersofCongressandofficialsthereofclassifiedasGrade"27'"andupundertheCompensationand
PositionClassificationActof1989

"(3)MembersofthejudiciarywithoutprejudicetotheprovisionsoftheConstitution

" (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitutionand

" (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27'" and higher under the Compensation and
PositionClassificationActof1989.

B.Otheroffensesoffelonieswhethersimpleorcomplexedwithothercrimescommittedbythepublicofficials
andemployeesmentionedinsubsectionaofthissectioninrelationtotheiroffice.

C.CivilandcriminalcasesfiledpursuanttoandinconnectionwithExecutiveOrderNos.1,2,14and14A,
issuedin1986.

"IncaseswherenoneoftheaccusedareoccupyingpositionscorrespondingtoSalaryGrade"27'"orhigher,
as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officer mentioned above, exclusive
originaljurisdictionthereofshallbevestedintheproperregionalcourt,metropolitantrialcourt,municipaltrial
court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as
providedinBatasPambansaBlg.129,asamended.

"TheSandiganbayanshallexerciseexclusiveappellatejurisdictionoverfinaljudgments,resolutionsororder
ofregionaltrialcourtswhetherintheexerciseoftheirownoriginaljurisdictionoroftheirappellatejurisdiction
ashereinprovided.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 5/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
"TheSandiganbayanshallhaveexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionoverpetitionsfortheissuanceofthewritsof
mandamus,prohibition,certiorari,habeascorpus,injunctions,andotherancillarywritsandprocessesinaid
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 14A, issued in 1986:
Provided,ThatthejurisdictionoverthesepetitionsshallnotbeexclusiveoftheSupremeCourt.

"TheprocedureprescribedinBatasPambansaBlg.129,aswellastheimplementingrulesthattheSupreme
Courthaspromulgatedandmaythereafterpromulgate,relativetoappeals/petitionsforreviewtotheCourtof
Appeals,shallapplytoappealsandpetitionsforreviewfiledwiththeSandiganbayan.Inallcaseselevatedto
the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman,
throughitsspecialprosecutor,shallrepresentthePeopleofthePhilippines,exceptincasesfiledpursuantto
ExecutiveOrderNos.1,2,14and14A,issuedin1986.

"Incaseprivateindividualsarechargedascoprincipals,accomplicesoraccessorieswiththepublicofficers
oremployees,includingthoseemployedingovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporations,theyshallbetried
jointlywithsaidpublicofficersandemployeesinthepropercourtswhichshallexerciseexclusivejurisdiction
overthem.

" Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the
correspondingcivilactionfortherecoveryofcivilliabilityshall,atalltimes,besimultaneouslyinstitutedwith,
andjointlydeterminedin,thesameproceedingbytheSandiganbayanortheappropriatecourts,thefilingof
the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to
reservethefilingsuchcivilactionseparatelyfromthecriminalactionshallberecognized:Provided,however,
That where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been
rendered,andthecriminalcaseishereafterfiledwiththeSandiganbayanortheappropriatecourt,saidcivil
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
deemedabandoned."

Upontheotherhand,R.A.No.3019isapenalstatuteapprovedonAugust17,1960.Thesaidlawrepressescertain
acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead
thereto.31PursuanttoSection10ofR.A.No.3019,allprosecutionsforviolationofthesaidlawshouldbefiledwith
theSandiganbayan.32

R.A.No.3019doesnotcontainanenumerationofthecasesoverwhichtheSandiganbayanhasjurisdiction.Infact,
Section4ofR.A.No.3019erroneouslycitedbypetitioner,dealsnotwiththejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanbut
withprohibitiononprivateindividuals.Wequote:

Section4.Prohibitiononprivateindividuals. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close
personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close
personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary
advantagefromanyotherpersonhavingsomebusiness,transaction,application,requestorcontractwiththe
government,inwhichsuchpublicofficialhastointervene.Familyrelationshallincludethespouseorrelatives
by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close
personalfriendship,socialandfraternalconnections,andprofessionalemploymentallgivingrisetointimacy
whichassuresfreeaccesstosuchpublicofficer.

(b)Itshallbeunlawfulforanypersonknowinglytoinduceorcauseanypublicofficialtocommitanyofthe
offensesdefinedinSection3hereof.

Infine,thetwostatutesdifferinthatP.D.No.1606,asamended,definesthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanwhile
R.A.No.3019,asamended,definesgraftandcorruptpracticesandprovidesfortheirpenalties.

Sandiganbayanhasjurisdictionover
theoffenseofestafa.

RelyingonSection4ofP.D.No.1606,petitionercontendsthatestafaisnotamongthosecrimescognizablebythe
Sandiganbayan.Wenotethatinhoistingthisargument,petitionerisolatedthefirstparagraphofSection4ofP.D.
No.1606,withoutregardtothesucceedingparagraphsofthesaidprovision.

Theruleiswellestablishedinthisjurisdictionthatstatutesshouldreceiveasensibleconstructionsoastoavoidan
unjust or an absurd conclusion.33 Interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper fienda est, ut evitetur inconveniens et
absurdum.Wherethereisambiguity,suchinterpretationaswillavoidinconvenienceandabsurdityistobeadopted.
Kungsaanmayroongkalabuan,angpagpapaliwanagayhindidapatmagingmahirapatkatawatawa.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 6/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
Everysection,provisionorclauseofthestatutemustbeexpoundedbyreferencetoeachotherinordertoarriveat
theeffectcontemplatedbythelegislature.34Theintentionofthelegislatormustbeascertainedfromthewholetext
ofthelawandeverypartoftheactistobetakenintoview.35Inotherwords,petitionersinterpretationliesindirect
oppositiontotherulethatastatutemustbeinterpretedasawholeundertheprinciplethatthebestinterpreterofa
statute is the statute itself.36 Optima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statutum. Ang isang batas ay marapat na
bigyanngkahulugansakanyangkabuuansailalimngprinsipyonaangpinakamainamnainterpretasyonay
angmismongbatas.

Section4(B)ofP.D.No.1606reads:

B.Otheroffensesorfelonieswhethersimpleorcomplexedwithothercrimescommittedbythepublicofficials
andemployeesmentionedinsubsectionaofthissectioninrelationtotheiroffice.

Evidently, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their
office.WeseenoplausibleorsensiblereasontoexcludeestafaasoneoftheoffensesincludedinSection4(bB)of
P.D. No. 1606. Plainly, estafa is one of those other felonies. The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin
requirementsthat(a)theoffenseiscommittedbypublicofficialsandemployeesmentionedinSection4(A)ofP.D.
No.1606,asamended,andthat(b)theoffenseiscommittedinrelationtotheiroffice.

In Perlas, Jr. v. People,37 the Court had occasion to explain that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over an
indictmentforestafaversusadirectoroftheNationalParksDevelopmentCommittee,agovernmentinstrumentality.
TheCourtheldthen:

TheNationalParksDevelopmentCommitteewascreatedoriginallyasanExecutiveCommitteeonJanuary
14,1963,forthedevelopmentoftheQuezonMemorial,Lunetaandothernationalparks(ExecutiveOrderNo.
30). It was later designated as the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC) on February 7, 1974
(E.O. No. 69). On January 9, 1966, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos and Teodoro F. Valencia were designated
Chairman and ViceChairman respectively (E.O. No. 3). Despite an attempt to transfer it to the Bureau of
ForestDevelopment,DepartmentofNaturalResources,onDecember1,1975(LetterofImplementationNo.
39,issuedpursuanttoPDNo.830,datedNovember27,1975),theNPDChasremainedundertheOfficeof
thePresident(E.O.No.709,datedJuly27,1981).

Since1977to1981,theannualappropriationsdecreeslistedNPDCasaregulargovernmentagencyunder
theOfficeofthePresidentandallotmentsforitsmaintenanceandoperatingexpenseswereissueddirectto
NPDC(Exh.10A,Perlas,ItemNos.2,3).

TheSandiganbayansjurisdictionoverestafawasreiteratedwithgreaterfirmnessinBondoc v. Sandiganbayan.38
PertinentpartsoftheCourtsrulinginBondocread:

Furthermore, it is not legally possible to transfer Bondocs cases to the Regional Trial Court, for the simple
reasonthatthelatterwouldnothavejurisdictionovertheoffenses.Asalreadyaboveintimated,theinabilityof
theSandiganbayantoholdajointtrialofBondocscasesandthoseofthegovernmentemployeesseparately
chargedforthesamecrimes,hasnotalteredthenatureoftheoffensescharged,asestafathrufalsification
punishablebypenaltieshigherthanprisioncorreccionalorimprisonmentofsixyears,orafineofP6,000.00,
committedbygovernmentemployeesinconspiracywithprivatepersons,includingBondoc.Thesecrimesare
withintheexclusive,originaljurisdictionoftheSandiganbayan.Theysimplycannotbetakencognizanceofby
the regular courts, apart from the fact that even if the cases could be so transferred, a joint trial would
nonethelessnotbepossible.

PetitionerUPstudentregent
isapublicofficer.

Petitioneralsocontendsthatsheisnotapublicofficer.ShedoesnotreceiveanysalaryorremunerationasaUP
student regent. This is not the first or likely the last time that We will be called upon to define a public officer. In
Khan,Jr.v.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,Weruledthatitisdifficulttopindownthedefinitionofapublicofficer.39The
1987Constitutiondoesnotdefinewhoarepublicofficers.Rather,thevarieddefinitionsandconceptsarefoundin
differentstatutesandjurisprudence.

InAparriv.CourtofAppeals,40theCourtheldthat:

Apublicofficeistheright,authority,anddutycreatedandconferredbylaw,bywhichforagivenperiod,either
fixedbylaworenduringatthepleasureofthecreatingpower,anindividualisinvestedwithsomeportionof
thesovereignfunctionsofthegovernment,tobeexercisebyhimforthebenefitofthepublic([MechemPublic
Offices and Officers,] Sec. 1). 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
creatingandconferringit(MechemIbid.,Sec.64).Thereisnosuchthingasavestedinterestoranestatein
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 7/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special
immunityasregardssalaryandtenure,noonecanbesaidtohaveanyvestedrightinanofficeoritssalary
(42Am.Jur.881).

InLaurelv.Desierto,41theCourtadoptedthedefinitionofMechemofapublicoffice:

"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
portionofthesovereignfunctionsofthegovernment,tobeexercisedbyhimforthebenefitofthepublic.The
individualsoinvestedisapublicofficer."42

Petitioner claims that she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27 she is, in fact, a regular tuition feepaying
student. This is likewise 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. In
Geduspanv.People,43WeheldthatwhilethefirstpartofSection4(A)coversonlyofficialswithSalaryGrade27
andhigher,itssecondpartspecificallyincludesotherexecutiveofficialswhosepositionsmaynotbeofSalaryGrade
27andhigherbutwhoarebyexpressprovisionoflawplacedunderthejurisdictionofthesaidcourt.Petitionerfalls
underthejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanassheisplacedtherebyexpressprovisionoflaw.44

Section4(A)(1)(g)ofP.D.No.1606explictlyvestedtheSandiganbayanwithjurisdictionoverPresidents,directorsor
trustees,ormanagersofgovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporations,stateuniversitiesoreducationalinstitutions
orfoundations.Petitionerfallsunderthiscategory.AstheSandiganbayanpointedout,theBORperformsfunctions
similartothoseofaboardoftrusteesofanonstockcorporation.45Byexpressmandateoflaw,petitioneris,indeed,
apublicofficerascontemplatedbyP.D.No.1606.

Moreover,itiswellestablishedthatcompensationisnotanessentialelementofpublicoffice.46Atmost,itismerely
incidentaltothepublicoffice.47

Delegationofsovereignfunctionsisessentialinthepublicoffice.Aninvestmentinanindividualofsomeportionof
thesovereignfunctionsofthegovernment,tobeexercisedbyhimforthebenefitofthepublicmakesoneapublic
officer.48

The administration of the UP is a sovereign function in line with Article XIV of the Constitution. UP performs a
legitimategovernmentalfunctionbyprovidingadvancedinstructioninliterature,philosophy,thesciences,andarts,
andgivingprofessionalandtechnicaltraining.49Moreover,UPismaintainedbytheGovernmentanditdeclaresno
dividendsandisnotacorporationcreatedforprofit.50

Theoffensechargedwascommitted
inrelationtopublicoffice,according
totheInformation.

Petitioner likewise argues that even assuming that she is a public officer, the Sandiganbayan would still not have
jurisdictionovertheoffensebecauseitwasnotcommittedinrelationtoheroffice.

Accordingtopetitioner,shehadnopowerorauthoritytoactwithouttheapprovaloftheBOR.Sheaddstherewas
noBoardResolutionissuedbytheBORauthorizinghertocontractwiththenPresidentEstradaandthatheracts
werenotratifiedbythegoverningbodyofthestateuniversity.Resultantly,heractwasdoneinaprivatecapacity
andnotinrelationtopublicoffice.

Itisaxiomaticthatjurisdictionisdeterminedbytheavermentsintheinformation.51Morethanthat,jurisdictionisnot
affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant or respondent in an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a
motiontoquash.52Otherwise,jurisdictionwouldbecomedependentalmostentirelyuponthewhimsofdefendantor
respondent.53

Inthecaseatbench,theinformationalleged,innouncertaintermsthatpetitioner,beingthenastudentregentof
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." (Underscoring
supplied)

Clearly, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan when it did not quash the
informationbasedonthisground.

Sourceoffundsisadefensethatshould
beraisedduringtrialonthemerits.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 8/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
It is contended anew that the amount came from President Estradas private funds and not from the government
coffers.Petitionerinsiststhechargehasnolegtostandon.

We cannot agree. 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 of Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, from the Office of the President, and the
latterrelyingandbelievingonsaidfalsepretensesandmisrepresentationgaveanddeliveredtosaidaccusedLand
BankCheckNo.91353datedOctober24,2000intheamountofFifteenMillionPesos(P15,000,000.00)."

Again,theCourtsustainstheSandiganbayanobservationthatthesourceoftheP15,000,000isamatterofdefense
thatshouldbeventilatedduringthetrialonthemeritsoftheinstantcase.54

Alawyerowescandor,fairness
andhonestytotheCourt.

Asapartingnote,petitionerscounsel,RenatoG.delaCruz,misrepresentedhisreferencetoSection4ofP.D.No.
1606 as a quotation from Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019. A review of his motion to quash, the instant petition for
certiorariandhismemorandum,unveilsthemisquotation.WeurgepetitionerscounseltoobserveCanon10ofthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibility,specificallyRule10.02oftheRulesstatingthat"alawyershallnotmisquoteor
misrepresent."

TheCourtstressedtheimportanceofthisruleinPanganv.Ramos,55whereAttyDionisioD.Ramosusedthename
PedroD.D.Ramosinconnectionwithacriminalcase.TheCourtruledthatAtty.Ramosresortedtodeceptionby
usinganamedifferentfromthatwithwhichhewasauthorized.WeseverelyreprimandedAtty.Ramosandwarned
thatarepetitionmaywarrantsuspensionordisbarment.56

We admonish petitioners counsel to be more careful and accurate in his citation. A lawyers conduct before the
courtshouldbecharacterizedbycandorandfairness.57Theadministrationofjusticewouldgravelysufferiflawyers
donotactwithcompletecandorandhonestybeforethecourts.58

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.

SOORDERED.

YnaresSantiago,Chairperson,AustriaMartinez,Corona*,Nachura,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
*ViceAssociateJusticeMinitaChicoNazario,perRaffledatedJanuary14,2008.JusticeChicoNazario
pennedtheassailedSandiganbayandecision,withtheconcurrenceofAssociateJusticesMa.CristinaG.
CortezEstradaandTeresitaV.DiazBaldos.
**AsitisfundedpartlybythePhilippinegovernmentandprivatedonations,theUPstudentshouldersa
minimaltuitionfeewhilebeingprovidedawiderangeofcoursesandprograms.

UPalsohasaSocializedTuitionandFinancialAssistanceProgram(STFAP,otherwiseknownastheIskolar
ngBayanProgram),whichenablesstudentstoavailofdiscountedtuitionfeestofulltuitionfeewaiversand
cashsubsidiesdeterminedaccordingtotheirincomebrackets.(www.up.edu.ph.)
1Rollo,pp.5864.

2Id.at5.

3Id.

4Id.

5Id.

6Id.at29.

7Id.at3640.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 9/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
8Id.at710.

9Id.at43.

10Id.at44.

11Id.at45,citingG.R.Nos.14426162,May9,2001,357SCRA677.

12Id.at47.

13Id.at50.

14Id.at54.

15Id.at58.

16Id.at6164.

17Id.at65.

18Id.at74.

19Id.at6.

20DelosReyesv.People,G.R.No.138297,January27,2006,480SCRA294Leev.People,G.R.No.
137914,December4,2002,393SCRA398Yapv.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.R.No.68464,March22,
1993,220SCRA245,253,citingAcharonv.Purisima,G.R.No.23731,June27,1965,13SCRA309
Bulaongv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.78555,January30,1990,181SCRA618.
21Marcelov.DeGuzman,G.R.No.L29077,June29,1982,114SCRA657.

22Gov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.128954,October8,1998,297SCRA575.

23G.R.No.L63559,May30,1986,142SCRA171.

24Id.at177179.

25Rollo,pp.4243.

26Id.at810.

27Id.at182.

28Id.at62.

29PresidentialDecreeNo.1486.,WhereasClause

30Section4.Jurisdiction.TheSandiganbayanshallhavejurisdictionover:

(a)ViolationsofRepublicActNo.3019,asamended,otherwise,knownastheAntiGraftandCorrupt
PracticesAct,andRepublicActNo.1379

(b)Crimescommittedbypublicofficersandemployeesincludingthoseemployedingovernment
ownedorcontrolledcorporations,embracedinTitleVIIoftheRevisedPenalCode,whethersimpleor
complexedwithothercrimesand

(c)Othercrimesoroffensescommittedbypublicofficersoremployees,includingthoseemployedin
governmentownedorcontrolledcorporations,inrelationtotheiroffice.

Thejurisdictionhereinconferredshallbeoriginalandexclusiveiftheoffensechargedispunishableby
apenaltyhigherthanprisioncorreccional,oritsequivalent,exceptashereinprovidedinother
offenses,itshallbeconcurrentwiththeregularcourts.

Incaseprivateindividualsarechargedascoprincipals,accomplicesoraccessorieswiththepublic
officersoremployeesincludingthoseemployedingovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporations,they
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 10/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
shallbetriedjointlywithsaidpublicofficersandemployees.

Whereanaccusedistriedforanyoftheaboveoffensesandtheevidenceisinsufficienttoestablishthe
offensecharged,hemayneverthelessbeconvictedandsentencedfortheoffenseproved,includedin
thatwhichischarged.

AnyprovisionoflawortheRulesofCourttothecontrarynotwithstanding,thecriminalactionandthe
correspondingcivilactionfortherecoveryofcivilliabilityarisingfromtheoffensechargedshall,atall
times,besimultaneouslyinstitutedwith,andjointlydeterminedinthesameproceedingby,the
Sandiganbayan,thefilingofthecriminalactionbeingdeemedtonecessarilycarrywithitthefilingof
thecivilaction,andnorighttoreservethefilingofsuchactionshallberecognizedProvided,however,
that,incaseswithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheSandiganbayan,wherethecivilactionhad
thereforebeenfiledseparatelywitharegularcourtbutjudgmentthereinhasnotyetbeenrenderedand
thecriminalcaseishereafterfiledwiththeSandiganbayan,saidcivilactionshallbetransferredtothe
Sandiganbayanforconsolidationandjointdeterminationwiththecriminalaction,otherwise,the
criminalactionmaynolongerbefiledwiththeSandiganbayan,itsexclusivejurisdictionoverthesame
notwithstanding,butmaybefiledandprosecutedonlyintheregularcourtsofcompetentjurisdiction
Provided,further,that,incaseswithintheconcurrentjurisdictionoftheSandiganbayanandtheregular
courts,whereeitherthecriminalorcivilactionisfirstfiledwiththeregularcourts,thecorresponding
civilorcriminalaction,asthecasemaybe,shallonlybefiledwiththeregularcourtsofcompetent
jurisdiction.

Exceptedfromtheforegoingprovisions,duringmartiallaw,arecriminalcasesagainstofficersand
membersofthearmedforcesintheactiveservice.
31RepublicActNo.3019,Section.1.

32Id,.,Section.10.

33Peoplev.Rivera,59Phil.236(1933).

34CommissionerofInternalRevenuev.TMXSales,G.R.No.83736,January15,1992,205SCRA184.

35AboitizShippingCorporationv.CityofCebu,G.R.No.L14526,March31,1965,13SCRA449Lopezv.
ElHogarFilipino,47Phil.249(1925)CharteredBankv.Imperial,48Phil.931(1921).
36LoyolaGrandVillasHomeowners(South)v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.117188,August7,1997,276
SCRA681.
37G.R.Nos.8463739,August2,1989,176SCRA57.

38G.R.Nos.7116365,November9,1990,191SCRA252.

39G.R.No.125296,July20,2006,495SCRA452,458459.

40G.R.No.L30057,January31,1984,127SCRA231,237238.

41430Phil.658(G.R.No.145368.April12,2002).

42Laurelv.Desierto,iId.at672673,citingF.R.Mechem,ATreatiseontheLawofPublicOfficesand
Officers,Sec.1.
43G.R.No.158187,February11,2005,451SCRA187.

44PresidentialDecreeNo.1606,Sec.4(A)(1)(g).

45Rollo,p.63.

46Laurelv.Desierto,supranote41,atG.R.No.145268,April12,2003,381SCRA48,68796980.

47Id.

48Id.430Phil.658,672(2002).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 11/12
6/14/2017 G.R. No. 162059
49UniversityofthePhilippinesv.CourtofIndustrialRelations,107Phil.848(G.R.No.L15416,April28,
1960)..
50Id.

51Lacsonv.ExecutiveSecretary,G.R.No.128096,January20,1999,301SCRA298Limv.Rodrigo,G.R.
No.L76974,November18,1988,167SCRA487.

52Commart(Phils.),Inc.v.Securities&ExchangeCommission,G.R.No.85318,June3,1991,198SCRA
73.

53Id.

54Rollo,p.64.

55Adm.CaseNo.1053,September7,1979,93SCRA87.

56Rollo,p.89.

57FarEasternShippingCompanyv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.130068&130150,October1,1998,297
SCRA30,5152Albertv.CourtofFirstInstanceofManila(Br.VI),G.R.No.L26364,May29,1968,23
SCRA948.
58Chavezv.Viola,Adm.CaseNo.2152,April19,1991,196SCRA10.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_162059_2008.html 12/12