MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed the plunder, graft, and malversation complaints filed against Executive Secretary Ralph Recto and former Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) Chief Executive Officer Emmanuel Ledesma.
In a consolidated resolution dated June 2 and furnished to the media on Tuesday, the antigraft body dismissed the criminal complaints stemming from Recto’s order, when he was the Department of Finance (DOF) chief, to transfer PhilHealth’s unused funds amounting to ₱60 billion to the national treasury in line with a special provision of the 2024 budget.
READ: Plunder raps filed vs Recto over diverted state funds
“This Office resolves to dismiss the criminal and administrative complaints against respondents for lack of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction and insufficiency of evidence, respectively,” the 40-page resolution read.
State prosecutors said the complaint for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 7080, or the Anti-Plunder Act, was dismissed because the return of the ₱60 billion to PhilHealth negated a core element of plunder — the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least ₱50 million.
“Thus, the return of the PhP60 Billion to PhilHealth militates against the allegation that respondents took advantage of their positions for ‘personal enrichment,’” the ruling said.
The complainants also failed to prove that Recto and Ledesma were liable under RA No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, according to the antigraft body.
A graft conviction requires three elements: first, that the accused is a public official; second, that the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and/or gross inexcusable negligence; and third, that the action caused undue injury to the government or unwarranted benefits to a private party.
The first element is undisputed, state prosecutors said, but the second and third elements were not proven.
“Complainants failed to prove the existence of a corrupt intent, dishonest design and unethical interest, which goes to the very nature of the offense charged,” the resolution read.
“The actions of respondents in this case were actually aligned and done in the faithful exercise of their respective official duties as DOF Secretary and PhilHealth President/CEO, respectively, in the implementation of Special Provision 1(d),” it continued.
Special Provision 1(d) permitted the return of fund balances or excess reserve funds from government-owned or controlled corporations to the National Treasury to fund unprogrammed appropriations under the 2024 General Appropriations Act (GAA).
In line with the special provision, Recto issued DOF Circular No. 003-2024, while Ledesma complied with the DOF directive to transfer PhilHealth’s reserve funds to the National Treasury. These actions became the basis of the technical malversation complaint.
State prosecutors said the corpus delicti, or body of the crime, in technical malversation is the application of public funds or property to a public use other than that for which they were intended. Malice or criminal intent is irrelevant in technical malversation.
However, citing Sama, et al. v. People, state prosecutors said the prosecution must still establish that the accused intended to commit the act.
The antigraft body said Recto and Ledesma were “both of the honest belief, albeit erroneously,” that the ₱60 billion formed part of PhilHealth’s fund balance — and not a special fund — that could be returned to the National Treasury.
It also noted that Recto informed the Supreme Court that the government would return the diverted funds. These circumstances, it said, “heavily weigh against the finding of technical malversation.”
“The peculiar circumstances of this case compel this Office to dismiss the criminal charge for Technical Malversation primarily on the failure of complainants to establish with moral certainty the respondents’ intent to perpetrate the offense,” the resolution read.
The prosecutors also cited the opinions of Supreme Court Justice Jhosep Lopez, who said the petitioners failed to prove plunder and technical malversation against Recto, and Justice Raul Villanueva, who said punishing Recto “is like punishing him for simply doing his job.”
READ: SC asked to stop transfer of P90-B PhilHealth funds
“It may be worth to mention as early at this point the separate opinions … of Supreme Court Justices … although not binding, have persuasive effect in this case,” the resolution read. /mcm
