Sandiganbayan denies Durano’s motion to quash

The criminal case filed against Danao City Mayor Ramonito Duterte Durano III over his alleged non-payments of back wages and other benefits to Danao City Hall employees despite the order of the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO)-7 continues.

Sandiganbayan Fifth Division Associate Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega has denied the motion to quash information that Durano had filed.

Durano alleged the information for violation of Section 67 of Book V, Executive Order No. 292 Administrative Code of 1987 filed against him was defective because it failed to allege the essential facts.

The Sandiganbayan, in its 10-page resolution, ruled the information does not lack any material element of the crime charged nor it was ambiguous that would prevent Durano to prepare for his defense.

"The ultimate facts which he [Durano] claims to be the facts and circumstances which must be alleged in the information are not the essential elements of the crime, these are evidentiary matters which must be presented before the court in a full-blown trial," read the resolution.

Earlier, the Office of the Ombudsman has indicted Durano before the anti-graft court after finding probable cause on the complaint filed by Orlando Dagatan, Jr., Amabella Gomez, Cecilia Lawas, Celso Aylwin Manulat, Leo Enriquez, Conchita Batuto, and Maria Sofielyn Camance.

Complainants alleged that the CSCRO issued a decision on August 14, 2014, granting their appeal and ordered their reinstatements which made them entitled to backwages, but these were not released.

On July 1, 2013, Durano III issued Memorandum No. 005 Series of 2013 revoking and/or recalling the appointments of all employees during the term of Danao City former mayor Ramon Durano, Jr., from 2010 to 2013.

The employees allegedly did not comply with the requirement that all appointments must undergo the screening process by the Personnel Selection Board (PSB) duly constituted by a resolution of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Danao City. Durano, on December 14, 2015, however, issued another memorandum recalling all employees, including complainants, to resume their work and their original designations.

Though they were reinstated, complainants alleged their back salaries and other benefits were not released.

In his motion, Durano alleged the information filed against him was vague and ambiguous and violates his constitutional right to be properly and sufficiently informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.

The Sandiganbayan ruled if the information was defective, the automatic quashal of the case was not the proper remedy but rather, an amendment of the information.