REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II – ATTY. RAMON S.
ESGUERRA
SERANA VS SANDIGANBAYAN AUTHOR: Del Rosario, Lamara F.
[G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008] NOTES:
TOPIC: Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts
PONENTE: Reyes, J.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Section 4 (A) (1) (g) of P.D. No. 1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or
trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations.
The 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.
FACTS:
Petitioner Hannah Serana was a student regent of UP who was appointed by President Estrada. She discussed with
Pres. Estrada the renovations of Vinzons Hall. Pres. Estrada gave P15 million as financial assistance. The source of
funds was from the Office of the President. However, the renovation failed to materialize.
The succeeding student regent filed a complaint for malversation of public funds and property with the
Ombudsman. The latter found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother for estafa docketed as Criminal
Case No. 27819 of the Sandiganbayan
The petitioner moved to quash the information claiming that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction
over the offense charged or over her person in her capacity as a UP Student Regent.
ISSUE(S): WON the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the person (YES)
HELD:
The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is set by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A. No. 3019, as amended. 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.
Section 4 (B) of P.D. No. 1606 reads:
“B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and
employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office.”
Evidently, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their
office. There is no plausible or sensible reason to exclude estafa as one of the offenses included in Section 4 (B) of P.D.
No. 1606. Plainly, estafa is one of those other felonies. The 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.
Petitioner claims that she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; she is, in fact, a regular tuition fee-paying
student. The Court ruled that it is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It also
has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No. 1606. The first part of Section 4 (A) covers only officials
with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part 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.
Section 4 (A) (1) (g) of P.D. No. 1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or
trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations.
RATIO:
Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provision of law.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW II – ATTY. RAMON S. ESGUERRA
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
