MY DIGESTS

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SERANA Vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

GR. No. 162059, Jan. 22, 2008
Facts:

Ms. Serana was a Senior Student of UP-Cebu.

Then Pres. Estrada appointed her as a student regent of UP on 12/21/99, with 1 yr. term from
Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2000.
In early part of year 2000, she discussed with Pres. Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex
in UP Diliman.
9/4/2000- she registered with SEC, the Office of Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI).
One of the projects of OSRFI was the renovation of the said hall to be renamed after to the then
Prs. Estrada Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada Student Hall.
Pres. Estrada gave her P15Million to the OSFRI as financial assistance for the proposed
renovation. Source of Fund= office of the President.
Renovation was not materialized.
The succeeding student regent Bugayong and De Guzman Sec-Gen. of the KASAMA sa UP, a
system wide alliance of student councils within the state university filed a complaint for
Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman.
7/3/2003- the Ombudsman after due investigation, found probable cause to indict Serana and
her brother for Estafa.
Serana moved to Quash the Information claiming that Sandiganbayan does not have nay
jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent.
She claimed that RA 3019 (as amended by RA. 8249) enumerates the crimes or offenses over
which the SAndiganbayan has jurisdiction.
Sandiganbayan denied her motion for lack of merit.
Serana filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied with finality.

ISSUE:

W/n the SAndiganbayan has jurisdiction over Estafa case?

RULING:

Sec.4(b) of PD 1606 defines the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan:

 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.

1st part of Section 4 (a) covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher.
2nd part of same section 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.
Evidently, from the provisions of Section 4(b) of PD No. 1606, the SAndiganbayan has
jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office. 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 PD
no. 1606, as amended, and that
b. the offense is committed in relation to their office.

Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, even if she does not have as SG 27,
as she is placed there by express provision of law. Sec. 4(a)(1)(g) of PD 1606 explicitly vested the
Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors , trustees, or managers of GOCC,
state universities or educational institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under this category.
Board of Regents performs function similar to those of a Board of Trustees of a non-stock
Corporation.
By express mandate of the law, petitioner is , indeed, a public officer as contemplated by PD
1606.

TITLE:

FACTS:

Major General Carlos Garcia was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Comptrollership of the AFP.

Atty. Maria Olivia Roxas, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Field Investigation Office
of the Office of the Ombudsman, after due investigation filed a complaint against Garcia for
violation of:

a. Sec. 8 of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
b. Art. 183 of RPC
c. Sec. 5.2a(1),(3),(20) of the Civil Service Law

The wife and 3 sons were impleaded for violation of RA 1379 (Act Declaring Forfeiture in favor of the
state any property found to have been unlawfully acquired by any public officer or employee and
providing for the proceedings therefor) in so far as they acted as conspirators, conduits, dummies
and fronts of petitioner in receiving, accumulating, using and disposing of ill-gotten wealth.

A Petition with Verified Urgent Ex Parte Commented [AN1]: Ex parte judicial proceedings are usuall
y reserved for urgent matters where requiring notice would su
bject one party toirreparable harm