Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 121 views

    Serana v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008 Reyes, R.T., J. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jaen Tajanlangit
    Hannah Serana was a student regent of the University of the Philippines-Cebu who helped establish the Office of the Student Regent Foundation to renovate Vinzons Hall Annex. The foundation received P15 million from the Office of the President for renovations but the project did not occur. Serana was indicted for estafa. The Sandiganbayan ruled it had jurisdiction over Serana and the offense because as a student regent, she was a public officer under PD 1606 and the offense was allegedly committed in relation to her office.

    Copyright:

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

    Serana v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008 Reyes, R.T., J. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jaen Tajanlangit
    121 views2 pages
    Hannah Serana was a student regent of the University of the Philippines-Cebu who helped establish the Office of the Student Regent Foundation to renovate Vinzons Hall Annex. The foundation received P15 million from the Office of the President for renovations but the project did not occur. Serana was indicted for estafa. The Sandiganbayan ruled it had jurisdiction over Serana and the offense because as a student regent, she was a public officer under PD 1606 and the offense was allegedly committed in relation to her office.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Serana v. Sandiganbayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Hannah Serana was a student regent of the University of the Philippines-Cebu who helped establish the Office of the Student Regent Foundation to renovate Vinzons Hall Annex. The foundation received P15 million from the Office of the President for renovations but the project did not occur. Serana was indicted for estafa. The Sandiganbayan ruled it had jurisdiction over Serana and the offense because as a student regent, she was a public officer under PD 1606 and the offense was allegedly committed in relation to her office.

    Copyright:

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

    Serana v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008 Reyes, R.T., J. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jaen Tajanlangit
    Hannah Serana was a student regent of the University of the Philippines-Cebu who helped establish the Office of the Student Regent Foundation to renovate Vinzons Hall Annex. The foundation received P15 million from the Office of the President for renovations but the project did not occur. Serana was indicted for estafa. The Sandiganbayan ruled it had jurisdiction over Serana and the offense because as a student regent, she was a public officer under PD 1606 and the offense was allegedly committed in relation to her office.

    Copyright:

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

    Serana v.

    Sandiganbayan
    G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008
    Reyes, R.T., J.

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Hannah Serana was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu.
    She was appointed as a student regent of UP for a year. Petitioner, with her siblings and relatives,
    registered with the SEC the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). One of the
    projects of the OSRFI was the renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex of the University. For this
    project, the Office of the President (Estrada term) gave P15,000,000.00 for the renovation
    project. However, The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex did not happen. 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 with the Office of
    the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, after investigation, found probable cause to indict petitioner
    and her brother Jade Ian D. Serana for Estafa. Petitioner moved to quash the information. She
    claimed that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crime of Estafa and that as a student
    regent without salary, she is not a public officer specially one with a Salary Grade 27. She
    further argued that the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office. Her motion
    was denied by the Sandiganbayan ruling that the Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other
    offenses committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioner and the offense
    charged against her.

    HELD:

    Yes, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitioner as well as the offense of Estafa.

    Under Section 4(B) of P.D. 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 P.D. No. 1606, as
    amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.

    Petitioner, who is a UP student regent is a public officer. Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No.
    1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over directors or trustees of
    government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
    foundations. Petitioner falls under this category since the Board of Regents performs functions
    similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. Therefore, By express mandate
    of law, petitioner is, a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606.

    You might also like