Case Digest: Remedial Law Criminal Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Hanna Eunice D. Serana vs Sandiganbayan

(GR 162059, 22 January 2008)
Synopsis and Doctrines upheld: Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned
or -controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations can be tried in the
Sandiganbayan for criminal and civil offenses in relation to their office.
Hanna Eunice Serana, a senior UP-Cebu student who was appointed as student regent in the UP Board
of Regents (BOR) by President Joseph Estrada on 21 December 1999, was accused of the crime of
estafa because of (her) malversation of public funds and property amounting to PhP15 Million for the
project of renovating UP Dilimans Vinzons Hall Annex. She raised the issues that (1) the Sandiganbayan
does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person as UP student regent and (2)
PD 1606 did not mention the crime of estafa as acts under its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied her
petition due to lack of merit. It held that P.D. No. 1606, rather than the amending laws R.A. No. 3019 and
R.A. 8249, determines Sandiganbayans jurisdiction. Thus under the said law, she falls under the
classification of officers that can be tried under that court.
Facts: Hannah Eunice Serana, a senior UP Cebu student, was appointed as UP student regent by
President Joseph Estrada on 21 December 1999, to serve a one-year term from 1 January 2000 until 31
December 2000. She discussed with Pres. Estrada renovation of UP Dilimans Vinzons Hall Annex and on
4 September 4, 2000, she registered Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI) with SEC.
The renovation was one of OSRFIs projects and Pres. Estrada (through the Office of the Pres.) gave
PhP15 Million to that organization as financial assistance. However, the renovation failed to materialize,
and a complaint was filed against her and her brother Jade Ian for malversation of public funds and
property in the Ombudsman. After investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict her and
her brother for estafa in the Sandigangayan on 3 July 2003.
She moved to quash the information, claiming that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over
the offense charged or over her person as UP student regent, since she (through her counsel Atty. Renato
G. Dela Cruz) stated under R.A. 3019 (amended by R.A. 8249) enumerates Sandiganbayans jurisdiction
over crimes or offenses and it did not mention jurisdiction over the crime of estafa.
The Ombudsman contested that Serana was a public officer as member of UP Board of Regents (UP
BOR), where she exercised the UPs corporate powers and general powers of administration. Moreover, it
disputed her interpretation of the law, stating that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the charges
against her as section 4(b) of the Sandiganbayan Law (P.D. 1606) clearly contains the catch-all phrase in
relation to office.
The Sandiganbayan denied Seranas motion to quash for lack of merit in its 14 November 2003 resolution
because it says that Serana falls under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan. She filed motion for
reconsideration of that resolution on 19 November 2003, but the motion was denied with finality on 4
February 2004.
Issue/s: Does Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction to try Hanna Serana and her brother for swindling
government funds (estafa)?
Held by the Supreme Court: Seranas petition for certiorari is DENIED due to lack of merit. It held that
P.D. No. 1606, rather than the amending laws R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. 8249, determines
Sandiganbayans jurisdiction. Thus, under the said law, she falls under the classification of officers that
can be tried under the said court (see the underlined provisions below):
Sec. 4 of RA 8249 states: Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction
in all cases involving:

A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, other known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense:
1. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
(Republic Act 6758), specifically including:
Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and
provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads;
City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, city treasurers,
assessors, engineers and other city department heads;
Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;
Philippine National Police officers occupying position of provincial director and those holding
the rank of senior superintendent or higher;
City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the
Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or -controlled
corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.
2. Members of Congress and its officials classified as Grade '27' and up under under RA 6758;
3. Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
4. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the
Constitution.
B. Other offenses of 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.
C. Civil and criminal cases filed in pursuance and in connection with EO 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.