Hannah Serana vs Sandiganbayan

Facts:
Hannah Serana, a senior student of the University of the Philippines- Cebu, was appointed by
then President Joseph Estrada to serve a one-year term as student Regent. Serana, along with her
siblings, registered the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, INC. (OSRFI) with a project to
renovate the Vinzons Hall Annex in which President Estrada gave Fifteen Million Pesos as
financial assistance sourced from the Office of the President.
Land Bank check No. 91353 was delivered and encashed by Jade and was misappropriated for
their personal use and benefit.
Her successor, Kristine Clare Bugayong filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and
Property with the Office of the Ombudsman in which the latter found probable cause to indict
Serana and her brother for the crime of Estafa.
Serena argues that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction (1) over the offense estafa, but
only on crimes enumerated under Section 4 (A) of PD 1606 as amended; (2) over her person, in
her capacity as UP student regent, since she was not a public officer- and assuming that she was
a public officer, it was not in relation to public office.
​
Issues:
1. Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the crime of estafa.

2. Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over Serena, an appointed student regent.

a. Is Serena considered a public official.

b. Was Estafa committed in relation to public office.

RULING:
1. Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the crime of estafa. Section 4(B) of PD
1606 as amended, expressly provides that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original
jurisdiction on all cases involving “other offenses” committed by public officials in
relation to their office. The SC held that there is no plausible reason to exclude estafa in
one of those other felonies.
2. Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Serena. The Supreme Court held that
jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirement 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 for the Sandiganbayan to
have exclusive original jurisdiction over her person.

a. Yes, Serena is considered a public official by express enumeration under
Section 4 (A)(1)(g) P.D. No. 1606 as amended. The same law expressly provides
that the Sandiganbayan is vested with jurisdiction over “Presidents, directors, or
trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state
universities or educational institutions or foundations.” The Supreme Court
agreed to the argument of the ombudsman that Serena, a student regent, is a
member of the Board of Regents which exercises the powers and functions similar
to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation and is thus, within the
enumeration stated above.

b. Yes, the crime of estafa was committed in relation to public office. The
Supreme Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the
information. It 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.
Here, the information alleged that Petitioner, “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. Serena, a private individual, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously defraud the government X X X.”.

​Discover amazing deals! Click the https://temu.to/k/gz3fac48wzk to explore Temu best seller and claim your ₱2,000 coupon bundle. Unlock unbeatable savings anytime, anywhere. Don't wait - act now and save big!