Case vs. Durano proceeds

The Sandiganbayan has struck down an attempt by Danao City Mayor Ramon “Nito” Durano III to drop a criminal case against him.

The anti-graft court’s Fifth Division denied for lack of merit Durano’s motion to quash the charge that he refused to release the back wages and leave credits of seven City Hall employees in 2013.

“This court is certain that the questioned information does not lack any material element of the crime charged, nor is it ambiguous that would prevent the accused to prepare for his defense,” read the Sandiganbayan’s resolution penned by Associate Justice Mary Anne Manalac.

Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales approved on Jan. 22 the filing of charges against Durano for violation of Section 67, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, in relation to Section 121 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Mayor Durano is not required to post bail.

The case stemmed from the administrative complaint filed by the seven workers, who accused the mayor of violating Republic Act 6712, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

The complainants are Orlando Dagatan, Jr., Amabella Gomez, Cecilia Lawas, Celso Aylwin Manulat, Leo Enriquez, Conchita Batuto, and Maria Sofielyn Camance.

Last July 1, 2013, Durano recalled the appointments of all employees during the term of his brother and former Mayor Ramon “Boy” Durano Jr. from 2010 to 2013.

He argued that their appointments did not comply with requirements in the screening process by the Personnel Selection Board, which a City Council resolution had created.

The employees were then barred from entering their workplaces and performing their functions.

The complainants appealed the case before the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which directed Mayor Nito to reinstate the employees and to release their back wages and leave credits. But the complainants said that the mayor still refused, despite the finality of the CSC resolution in 2014.

The Danao City personnel were already reinstated to their positions before the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas ordered Nito’s suspension.

In his motion to quash the charge, Durano’s lawyer argued that the case information does not constitute an offense for lack of allegations on the date the mayor implemented the ruling.

The charge information is “vague and ambiguous” and, thus, violated the mayor’s constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the allegations against him.

Durano also filed a motion to admit additional evidence to support his motion to quash information.

In the resolution, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the information has substantially complied with requirements set by law.

Likewise, the Sandiganbayan dismissed Durano’s motion to admit additional evidence, saying the supposed new evidence does not support his motion to drop the charge sheet.