7/24/2019 jurisdiction cases digest rem1.docx

1/4

Serana vs. Sandiganbayan GR No. 162059

Facts:Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu (UP). She was appointed by then President oseph Estrada on Dece!ber "#$

#%%% as a student re&ent of UP$ to serve a one-year ter! startin& anuary #$ "''' andendin& on Dece!ber #$ "'''.

Petitioner received # !illion fro! President Estrada for the renovation of the *in+onsHall ,nne. However such renovation failed to !ateriali+ed. Hence$ o!buds!an filed achar&e of estafa to the sandi&anbayan.

Issue:Can petitioner be char&ed of estafa in the Sandi&anbayan Can petitioner beconsidered as public officer

Ruling:

Petitioner can be char&ed of estafa as provided in Section /(0) of P.D. 1o. #2'2. 3heSandi&anbayan has 4urisdiction over other felonies co!!itted by public officials inrelation to their office. 5e see no plausible or sensible reason to eclude estafa as oneof the offenses included in Section /(b0) of P.D. 1o. #2'2. Plainly$ estafa is one ofthose other felonies. 3he 4urisdiction is si!ply sub4ect to the twin re6uire!ents that (a)the offense is co!!itted by public officials and e!ployees !entioned in Section /(,) ofP.D. 1o. #2'2$ as a!ended$ and that (b) the offense is co!!itted in relation to theiroffice.

,s to the issue of whether or not petitioner is a public officer. 7t was held in 8aurel vsDesierto$ that public office is the ri&ht$ authority$ and duty created and conferred by law$

by which for a &iven period$ either fied by law or endurin& at the pleasure of thecreatin& power$ an individual is invested with so!e portion of the soverei&n functions ofthe &overn!ent$ to be eercise by hi! for the benefit of the public. 3he individual soinvested is a public officer.

Since 09: perfor!s functions si!ilar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stoc;corporation. 0y epress !andate of law$ petitioner is a public officer as conte!plated byP.D. 1o. #2'2 the statute definin& the 4urisdiction of the Sandi&anbayan. 7t is wellestablished that co!pensation is not an essential ele!ent of public office. ,t !ost$ it is!erely incidental to the public office. Hence$ Petitioner is a public officer by epress!andate of P.D.1o. #2'2 and 4urisprudence.

7/24/2019 jurisdiction cases digest rem1.docx

2/4

7/24/2019 jurisdiction cases digest rem1.docx

3/4

@,178, E3C.$ E3 ,8. v. H91. C,:7D,D H.

7/24/2019 jurisdiction cases digest rem1.docx

4/4

F"##*A petition is denied