1/25/2020 Serana v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No.

162059 January 22, 2008 – PINAY JURIST

 MENU

PINAY JURIST
BAR EXAM REVIEWERS AND CASE DIGESTS

— POLITICAL LAW —  Search …

Serana v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 162059 January 22, GET

2008 RESOURCE
BUNDLES &
A U G U S T 1 7, 2 0 1 8 FRESH
CONTENT
NOTIFICATION

Sign up for Pinay

FACTS: Jurist Newsletter

Name

Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was

appointed by then President Joseph
Email
Estrada  as a student regent of UP, to
serve a one-year term.
By continuing, you
Petitioner discussed with President accept the privacy
Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall policy

Annex in UP Diliman.
I'M IN!

https://www.pinayjurist.com/serana-v-sandiganbayan-g-r-no-162059-january-22-2008/ 1/6
1/25/2020 Serana v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008 – PINAY JURIST

Petitioner, with her siblings and

relatives, registered with the Securities
and Exchange Commission the O ce of
the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. CATEGORIES

(OSRFI).
Banking

One of the projects of the OSRFI was the Bar Q & A

renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex.
President Estrada gave Fifteen Million Civil Law

Pesos (P15,000,000.00) to the OSRFI as

Constitutional Law
nancial assistance for the proposed
renovation. The source of the funds, Corporation Law

according to the information, was the

Criminal Law
O ce of the President.

Election Law
The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex
failed to materialize. The succeeding Insurance

student regent and the  Secretary General

Intellectual Property
of the KASAMA sa U.P., a system-wide
Law
alliance of student councils within the
state university, consequently led a International Law

complaint for Malversation of Public

Labor Law
Funds and Property with the O ce of the
Ombudsman. Law School

The Ombudsman, after due investigation, Legal Ethics

found probable cause to indict petitioner

Mercantile Law
and her brother Jade Ian D. Serana for
estafa. Political Law

Petitioner moved to quash the Remedial Law

information. She claimed that the

Special Proceedings
Sandiganbayan does not have any
jurisdiction over the o ense charged or Taxation
over her person, in her capacity as UP
student regent, claiming that she was not
a public o cer since she merely
represented her peers, in contrast to the POLL
other regents who held their positions in
https://www.pinayjurist.com/serana-v-sandiganbayan-g-r-no-162059-january-22-2008/ 2/6
1/25/2020 Serana v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008 – PINAY JURIST

an ex o cio capacity. She addsed that she

What subjects are y
was a simple student and did not receive
enrolled in?
any salary as a student regent.

I am a Bar Reviewee
The OMB opposed the motion. According
to the Ombudsman, petitioner, despite
Political/ Constitutional
her protestations, iwas a public o cer. As Law & Election Laws)
a member of the BOR, she hads the
general powers of administration and
Criminal Law (Special P
exerciseds the corporate powers of UP.

Civil Law (Private Int'l L

The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s
motion for lack of merit.
Mercantile Law

 
Remedial Law

ISSUE:
Taxation

Whether or not petitioner is a public

o cer. Labor Law

  Legal Ethics

Other:
RULING:

Vote
Petitioner UP student regent is a public
o cer. View Results Cro

Petitioner claims that she is not a public

o cer with Salary Grade 27; she is, in
fact, a regular tuition fee-paying student.
META
This is bereft of merit. It is not only the
salary grade that determines the
Register
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over Log in

other o cers enumerated in P.D. No.

Entries feed
1606.

Comments feed

https://www.pinayjurist.com/serana-v-sandiganbayan-g-r-no-162059-january-22-2008/ 3/6
1/25/2020 Serana v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008 – PINAY JURIST

Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of WordPress.org

the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there
by express provision of law.

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. Petitioner falls under this
category. 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, petitioner is, indeed, a public o cer
as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606.

Moreover, it is well established that

compensation is not an essential element
of public o ce. At most, it is merely
incidental to the public o ce.

Delegation of sovereign functions is

essential in the public o ce. An
investment in an individual of some
portion of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for
the bene t of the public makes one a
public o cer.

 AUGUST 17, 2018  PINAYJURIST

 POLITICAL LAW  LAW OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

https://www.pinayjurist.com/serana-v-sandiganbayan-g-r-no-162059-january-22-2008/ 4/6
1/25/2020 Serana v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008 – PINAY JURIST

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required elds
are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

POST COMMENT

PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST

Laurel v. Desierto Flores v. Drilon G.R.

G.R. No. 145368 April No. 104732 June 22,
12, 2002 Law on 1993 Eligibility and
Public O cers, R. A. Quali cations, Law
3019 on Public O cers

https://www.pinayjurist.com/serana-v-sandiganbayan-g-r-no-162059-january-22-2008/ 5/6
1/25/2020 Serana v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 162059 January 22, 2008 – PINAY JURIST

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Anissa by AlienWP.

https://www.pinayjurist.com/serana-v-sandiganbayan-g-r-no-162059-january-22-2008/ 6/6