SERANA VS SANDIGANBAYAN

542 SCRA 224

Facts:
Petitioner Hannah Serana was a student regent appointed by Pres. Estrada
. In view of the renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman, petitioner
with her siblings and relatives registered with the SEC the Office of the Studen
t Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI), of which the president gave 15000000 as finan
cial assistance, however, said project never materialized. Hence, after due inve
stigation, the Ombudsman indict petitioner and her brother for estafa.
Petitioner moved to quash the information claiming that the Sandiganbaya
n has no jurisdiction over the case or over her person, in her capacity as stude
nt regent. She invoke RA 3019 as amended by RA 8249 which enumerates the crimes
or offenses which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only; that the petitioner i
s not a public officer with Salary grade 27 and she paid her tuition fees; that
the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office; and that the fu
nds in question personally came from the president and not from the government.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction in not quashing the information
and dismissing the case notwithstanding that it has no jurisdiction over the off
ense charged in the information.
Held:
The petition cannot be granted.
Sec. 4 of RA 3019 does not determined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganba
yan but rather PD 1606. Under this provision, it reads â other offenses or felonies w
hether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials a
nd employees mentioned in subsection A of this section in relation to their offi
ce.â Evidently, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies and this oth
er felony includes estafa.
The rule is well-established in this jurisdiction that statutes should r
eceive a sensible construction so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion.
Interpretaio talis in ambiguis simper fienda est, ut evitetur inconveniens et a
bsurdum. Where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid inconvenien
ce and absurdity is to be adopted. Every section, provision, or clause of the st
atute must be expounded by reference to each other in order to arrive at the eff
ect contemplated by the legislature. The intention of the legislator must be asc
ertained from the whole text of the law and every part of the act is to be taken
into view. Also, statute must be ascertained from the whole under the principle
of Optima Statuli Interpretatix est ipsum statutum.