The Supreme Court ruled that a student regent of a state university, despite not receiving a salary, can be considered a public officer for purposes of Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. This means that if a student regent is accused of crimes related to their office, such as estafa involving public funds, the Sandiganbayan has the authority to try the case. This decision clarifies the scope of who can be considered a public officer and reinforces accountability for those entrusted with government resources, regardless of their compensation.

Iskolar ng Bayan, Swindler ng Bayan? Examining a Student Regent’s Public Role

This case revolves around Hannah Eunice D. Serana, a student regent of the University of the Philippines (UP), who was accused of estafa along with her brother. The charges stemmed from Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00) given by then President Joseph Estrada for the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman. Serana, as the student regent, allegedly requested the funds, but the renovation never materialized, leading to accusations that the money was misappropriated. The central legal question is whether the Sandiganbayan, a special court for public officials, has jurisdiction over Serana, considering her position as a student regent and the nature of the alleged crime.

Serana argued that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because estafa is not explicitly listed among the crimes it can handle. Furthermore, she claimed she was not a public officer because she was merely a student representative without a salary. She contended that even if the funds were misused, they came from President Estrada personally, not from government coffers. The Sandiganbayan, however, denied her motion to quash the information, leading to this Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court first addressed the procedural issue, stating that a denial of a motion to quash is generally not correctible by certiorari.

However, exceptions exist if the denial involves grave abuse of discretion, such as acting without or exceeding jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is determined by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606, as amended, not solely by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019. P.D. No. 1606 outlines the Sandiganbayan’s authority over specific officials and offenses related to their office. R.A. No. 3019, on the other hand, defines graft and corrupt practices.

The Supreme Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction extends to “other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees…in relation to their office.” Estafa, therefore, falls within the Sandiganbayan’s purview if committed by a public official in connection with their duties. The Court has previously affirmed this jurisdiction in cases such as Perlas, Jr. v. People and Bondoc v. Sandiganbayan, emphasizing that the Sandiganbayan’s authority includes estafa charges against government officials acting in their official capacity. The crucial point here is the nexus between the offense and the public office held by the accused.

The Court then tackled the question of whether Serana qualified as a public officer. Citing Khan, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court acknowledged the difficulty in pinpointing a precise definition of a public officer. Drawing from jurisprudence and Mechem’s definition, a public office is defined by the right, authority, and duty created by law, where an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government for the public’s benefit. While Serana argued that she lacked a salary, the Court emphasized that compensation is not an essential element of public office, and the crucial factor is the delegation of sovereign functions.

As a student regent, Serana was part of the Board of Regents (BOR), which exercises general administrative and corporate powers over the University of the Philippines. The BOR’s functions are akin to those of a board of trustees in a non-stock corporation, making Serana a public officer under P.D. No. 1606. Because the information specifically alleged that Serana committed the offense in relation to her office and took advantage of her position, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction to try a student regent for estafa and whether a student regent could be considered a public officer.
Why did the petitioner argue that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction?	The petitioner argued that estafa is not explicitly listed as a crime the Sandiganbayan can handle and that as a student regent, she was not a public officer, and the money involved came from the President personally.
What is the basis for the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction in this case?	The Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is based on P.D. No. 1606, which grants it authority over offenses committed by public officials in relation to their office, and her position as part of the Board of Regents.
Is compensation a requirement for being considered a public officer?	No, compensation is not an essential element of public office. The delegation of sovereign functions for public benefit is the determining factor.
What role did the Board of Regents (BOR) play in this case?	The BOR’s role was significant because as a member, the student regent shared the board’s administrative and corporate powers over the university.
How did the Court determine if the crime was committed in relation to the petitioner’s office?	The Court relied on the allegations in the information, which stated that the petitioner committed the offense in relation to her office and took advantage of her position.
What was the Court’s ruling on the source of the funds involved?	The Court held that the source of the funds (whether from the government or the President personally) was a matter of defense that should be raised during trial.
What was the consequence for the petitioner’s counsel’s misrepresentation of legal references?	The Court admonished the petitioner’s counsel to be more careful and accurate in citing legal sources and emphasized the importance of candor and fairness before the court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over public officials, including student regents, who are accused of offenses related to their office, regardless of compensation. This case underscores the importance of accountability and ethical conduct for individuals entrusted with public responsibilities and provides clarification on the scope of who can be considered a public officer.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008