Whistle-blowers group to file malversation raps vs. PhilHealth execs before Ombudsman

Witnesses who blew the whistle on the release of millions of pesos in PhilHealth funds for ghost dialysis treatments will file malversation complaints before the Ombudsman, their lawyer said on Friday.

Attorney Harry Roque said Ombudsman Samuel Martires supported the filing malversation raps against PhilHealth officials who apparently allowed the release of PhilHealth funds to WellMed Dialysis and Laboratory Center.

The estafa charges the Department of Justice filed against some of the whistle-blowers and WellMed owner Bryan Sy, he said, were wrong.

“Ang napagkasunduan po namin, mali po talaga ‘yung kaso na sinampa sa WellMed. Hindi po estafa ‘yan dahil hindi po pribadong pondo ang nalustay. Ang estafa po, nangyayari pag nangdenggoy ang isang pribadong individual at ang nadenggoy ay pribadong pera,” Roque said.

“Ito po ay pera ng taong bayan. Ang kaso po dapat ay malversation. Magsasampa kami ng malversation laban sa Philhealth officials dito [sa Ombudsman], pero kinakailangan ma-dismiss muna ‘yung kasong nakabinbin na estafa,” he added.

Roque, counsel for PhilHealth-WellMed scam whistleblowers, made the comments after a meeting with Martires.

The meeting happened a few hours after PhilHealth scam whistleblowers, Liezel Aileen de Leon and Edwin Roberto, were arrested on estafa charges.

Under the Revised Penal Code, malversation is committed “by any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, will appropriate the same or will take or misappropriate or will consent, through abandonment or negligence, will permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or will otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.

The Ombudsman law, on the other hand, states that “the Ombudsman may grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession and production of documents or other evidence may be necessary to determine the truth in any hearing, inquiry or proceeding being conducted by the Ombudsman or under its authority, in the performance or in furtherance of its constitutional functions and statutory objectives.”

The immunity clause under the Ombudsman law, however, does not  exempt witnesses from criminal liability, or perjury, or false testimony, as well as demotion or removal from office.

Roque said PhilHealth officials should be made liable before the Sandiganbayan, given that they signed cheques and vouchers to release as remuneration for what turned out to be dead individuals.

“Sa tingin ko naman po, sapat naman na merong mga pumirma ng tseke at merong pumirma ng voucher para magbayad ng mga benepisyo sa mga patay at para maisama sa kaso [ng malversation] ang mga taong gobyerno na taga PhilHealth,” Roque said.

“Ngayon po kasi yung kasong nakabinbin, walang jurisdiction ang Ombudsman. Bakit? kasi walang taong gobyerno na isinama sa kaso. Pero as soon as may sinama kaming taong gobyerno, sila na po ang merong jurisdiction,” he added.

Roque then stressed that it is important for the witnesses to secure protection from the Ombudsman since as eyewitnesses of the scam as it happened, they would know the transgressions of both PhilHealth and WellMed officials.

“Alam niyo po, hindi mapapakulong ang WellMed [officials] kung walang testimonya ng dalawa [na witness na ito] dahil sila ‘yung inutusan na magfalsify ng mga dokumento ng may-ari mismo,” Roque said.

“Kaya sa tingin ko po, ganun na lang yung pagnanais nung mga may tunay na pagkakasala na huwag magtestigo ‘yung dalawa, kaya pinahihirapan ‘yung dalawa,” Roque added. —NB, GMA News