Former Department of Tourism (DOT) secretary Joseph Felix Mari Durano, also known as Ace Durano, and five other officials involved in a 2009 DOT wall calendar project have been acquitted of graft charges.

The Supreme Court Second Division acquitted Durano and other accused appellants Eduardo A. Jarque, Jr; Oscar P. Palabyab, Grace R. Yoro, Evelyn R. Cajigal, and Adriana M. Flor for the "failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt."

The six were charged for alleged violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 

The decision was released on January 22, 2024, and rendered final and executory. A copy of the 25-page Supreme Court ruling was provided to GMA Regional TV News on May 15, 2024.

Durano is from Cebu.

CHARGES

Durano, then DOT secretary; Palabyab, then undersecretary and chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC); Yoro, then director of financial services of BAC; and then BAC members Jarque, Jr., Cajigal, and Flor, all of the DOT, were accused of giving PDP Digital, Inc. a private party, unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through the "conceptualization and development" of DOT Wall Calendar 2009 worth P2.7 million without competitive bidding. 

The calendar highlighted various Philippine destinations, attractions, services, and amenities. 

COA MEMO

On June 25, 2010, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued Audit Observation Memorandum No.10-007 stating that the project violated Section 10, Article IV of Republic Act No. 9184 due to lack of public bidding or unjustifiable resort to direct contracting.

The Ombudsman, on September 22, 2017, issued a resolution finding probable cause for the filing of an information against Durano and others for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.

COA also issued an Order on May 22, 2018 denying Durano and company separate Motions for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated September 22, 2017 for lack of merit. 

On arraignment, Durano and the five others pleaded not guilty.  

During the trial, Durano testified that on August 2008, his office received a proposal from PDP Digital, stating that they will provide their own photographs, and perform the conceptualization, design, and layout for a wall calendar. He then entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with PDP Digital and forwarded the project to the BAC, which issued Resolution No. 2009-06. The resolution provided that the procurement was pursuant to RA 9184 since it involved proprietary materials, such as copyrighted materials. 

SANDIGANBAYAN RULING

Durano also testified that he believed in the internal process of the DOT and that documents endorsed to his office for signature went through this process. 

However, Sandiganbayan found Durano and others guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. 

Each of the accused was sentenced to suffer the penalty of six years and one month to 10 years of imprisonment with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding any public office. 

Upon the respective Motions for Reconsiderations filed by Durano and others, the Sandiganbayan issued its resolution denying and upholding their conviction.

In his appellant’s brief, Durano argued that his constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases was violated as the complaint against him was filed only on July 12, 2016. Since it had been six years after he had already left the DOT and eight years after the contract was awarded, he no longer had access to the documents pertaining to the project and this impeded his ability to rebut the allegations against him. 

He further argued that the Sandiganbayan erred when it ruled that there was manifest partiality exhibited and unwarranted benefits given in favor of PDP Digital. 

COURT’S RULING

The Supreme Court resolved to reverse the Sandiganbayan’s Decision and Resolution and acquit Durano and five others of the crime charged. 

“We preliminarily address the claim of Durano that his right to speedy disposition of cases was violated. We find that this is not applicable to the instant case,” the Supreme Court resolution reads. 

“Other than the mere violation of procurement laws, the prosecution did not present proof beyond reasonable doubt that Durano and others gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference through manifest partiality and/or gross inexcusable negligence. There was likewise no allegation or proof that the subject procurement was overpriced. Lastly, there was no allegation or proof that Durano and others personally benefited from the project,” the ruling further reads. 

NO PROOF TO ELEMENTS OF CRIME CHARGED

Elements of the crime charged against Durano have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

These elements were that he is a public officer; the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative, or judicial functions; the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and that the public officer caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. 

The Supreme Court decision further read that upon finding that not all the elements of the crime charged have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, “there is no need to determine whether Durano and others were engaged in conspiracy with each other.”

 “As their acts did not amount to a violation of the crime charged, determining whether there is collective criminal liability among them becomes a futile exercise,” the resolution read.

“Appeals are granted. The Decision dated November 26, 2021 and Resolution dated January 18, 2022 of the Sandiganbayan are hereby reversed and set aside…let entry of final judgment be issued immediately,” the resolution concluded.