Marikina mayor, three others face technical malversation rap
MANILA, Philippines — Marikina Mayor Marcelino Teodoro and three other city officials are facing a technical malversation complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for reportedly misallocating P130 million in Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) funds.
Marikina resident Sofronio Dulay filed a criminal complaint for violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and an administrative case for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against Teodoro, City Accountant Erlinda Gutierrez Gonzales, City Treasurer Nerissa Calvez San Miguel, and Assistant City Budget Officer Jason Rodriguez Nepomuceno last May 15.
READ: Marikina City Mayor says PNP accusation ‘unfair, ridiculous’
Based on a copy of the complaint Dulay released on Tuesday, the four were accused of misusing PhilHealth payments meant for health system improvements under the Universal Health Care Act.
Dulay’s complaint disclosed that Teodoro and the others passed City Ordinance No. 066, Series of 2023, and City Ordinance No. 002, Series of 2024, which allocates P130 million to various budgetary items in Marikina.
Dulay claimed that the four reportedly allocated the money (P130 million) on “IT equipment, repair and maintenance of infrastructure and/or donations,” amounting to P35,250,000, while the remaining fund P94,750,000 were used for “other supplies and materials expense.”
According to the complainant, the passage of the city ordinances mentioned above violated the provision of Republic Act 11223 or the Universal Health Care Act.
In response to this, the four submitted a joint counter-affidavit last month, wherein they “strongly deny all the allegations in the complaint as nothing but a mere product of misapprehension and misunderstanding of the facts” concerning the P130 million PhilHealth reimbursement received by Marikina City.
Teodoro and the others claimed that elements of technical malversation under Article 220 of the RPC are not present in the case.
“It is clear that for technical malversation to exist, it is necessary that public funds or properties had been diverted to other public use other than that provided for by law or ordinance, and when funds were not earmarked for a particular project, there is no technical malversation,” the document reads.
“In this case, the complainant did not present any evidence proving that the subject P130,000,000 was indeed applied for other purpose,” it adds.
The respondents also disclosed that the PhilHealth fund remains “intact and fully accounted for.”
Using the same argument, Teodoro and the others claimed that they “did not commit any act constituting grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.”
