Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 950 views

    Serana Vs Sandiganbayan G.R.no. 162059

    Uploaded by

    Virnadette Lopez
    The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Hannah Eunice Serana's estafa case. As the former UP student regent, Serana was a public officer under PD 1606, which gives the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over cases involving public officers. While regent, Serana received P15 million in public funds for a renovation project that did not materialize, leading to her indictment. The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, finding that compensation is not required for a position to be considered a public office, and that UP serves a governmental function.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Serana Vs Sandiganbayan G.R.no. 162059

    Uploaded by

    Virnadette Lopez
    950 views2 pages
    The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Hannah Eunice Serana's estafa case. As the former UP student regent, Serana was a public officer under PD 1606, which gives the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over cases involving public officers. While regent, Serana received P15 million in public funds for a renovation project that did not materialize, leading to her indictment. The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, finding that compensation is not required for a position to be considered a public office, and that UP serves a governmental function.

    Original Description:

    Serana vs Sandiganbayan G.R.no. 162059

    Original Title

    Serana vs Sandiganbayan G.R.no. 162059

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Hannah Eunice Serana's estafa case. As the former UP student regent, Serana was a public officer under PD 1606, which gives the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over cases involving public officers. While regent, Serana received P15 million in public funds for a renovation project that did not materialize, leading to her indictment. The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, finding that compensation is not required for a position to be considered a public office, and that UP serves a governmental function.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    950 views2 pages

    Serana Vs Sandiganbayan G.R.no. 162059

    Uploaded by

    Virnadette Lopez
    The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Hannah Eunice Serana's estafa case. As the former UP student regent, Serana was a public officer under PD 1606, which gives the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over cases involving public officers. While regent, Serana received P15 million in public funds for a renovation project that did not materialize, leading to her indictment. The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, finding that compensation is not required for a position to be considered a public office, and that UP serves a governmental function.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    HANNAH EUNICE D.

    SERANA
    vs.
    SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
    G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008 Reyes, R.T., J.
    Article II Virnadette Lopez
    Petitioners Respondents
    HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA SANDIGANBAYAN and
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    Recit Ready Summary

    (please see below)


    Facts of the Case

    Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu
    (UP). She was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada on December 21, 1999 as a student
    regent of UP, to serve a one-year term starting January 1, 2000 and ending on December 31,
    2000.

    On September 4, 2000 petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the
    Securities and Exchange Commission the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc.
    (OSRFI). President Joseph Estrada gave OSRFI Php15,000,000.00 for one its project which
    is the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman.

    The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. The succeeding student regent,
    Kristine Clare Bugayong, and Christine Jill De Guzman, Secretary General of the KASAMA
    sa U.P., a system-wide alliance of student councils within the state university, consequently
    filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property against Hanna Eunice D.
    Serena and his brother Jade Ian D. Serana with the Office of the Ombudsman.

    After due investigation, the Ombudsman found a probable cause to indict petitioner and her
    brother Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 27819 of the
    Sandiganbayan. Petitioner moved to quash the information. She claimed that the
    Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person,
    in her capacity as UP student regent. The Sandiganbayan denied her motion for lack of merit.
    Then she filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied with finality.

    Issues Ruling
    1. Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has a jurisdiction over her (Serena) estafa Yes
    case. Yes
    2. Whether or not a government scholar and a UP student regent is a public
    officer.
    Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
    1. The Sandiganbayan has a jurisdiction over an estafa case.

    It is P.D. No.1606, as amended, rather than R.A. No. 3019, as amended that determines
    the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which is determined by Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019
    (The Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended). Section 4 (B) of P.D. No. 1606
    states that “Other offenses of felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
    committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection of this section in
    relation to their office.” The Sandiganbayan has a jurisdiction over other felonies committed
    by public officials in relation to their office and estafa is one of those felonies. The
    jurisdiction is subject to these requirements:

    The offense is committed by public officials and employees as stated in P.D. No. 1606 The
    offense is committed in relation to their office.

    2. Petitioner is a public officer/official and falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
    even if she does not have a salary grade 27.

    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. As the
    Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of
    trustees of a non-stock corporation.By express mandate of law, The petitioner
    is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606 the statute defining the
    jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

    Moreover, it is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public


    office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office.

    The administration of the UP is a sovereign function in line with Article XIV of the
    Constitution. UP performs a legitimate governmental function by providing advanced
    instruction in literature, philosophy, the sciences, and arts, and giving professional and
    technical training.[49] Moreover, UP is maintained by the Government and it declares no
    dividends and is not a corporation created for profit.[50] Petitioner is therefore a public
    officer by express mandate of P.D. No. 1606 and jurisprudence.

    Disposition

    The petition is DENIED for lack of merit DUE COURSE and DISMISSED.
    Separate Opinions

    You might also like