A Manila court has found the sworn statement of Senate witness Orly Guteza falsified, absolving notary public Petchie Rose Espera of any liability in the document’s notarization.
In an 11-page order dated Oct. 24, Executive Judge Carolina Iscasiano-Sison of the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 18 said Espera appeared to be a ‘victim’ of the falsification incident, as her signature and notarial details had been forged.
One of the bases for the executive judge’s ruling was a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) forensic analysis, which showed that the signature in Guteza’s sworn statement, compared with Espera’s standard signature, ‘were not written by one and the same person.’
Guteza appeared before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in September, claiming that he delivered suitcases of cash to the homes of former lawmaker Zaldy Co and Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez.
His sworn statement was supposedly notarized by Espera, who later denied doing so.
The lawyer filed an incident report with the Manila court, which then initiated proceedings to investigate the matter.
In her report, Espera categorically denied notarizing or signing the document, saying that the notarial signature and seal attributed to her were falsified and unauthorized.
Guteza, meanwhile, did not appear during the court proceedings.
The court then asked the NBI to examine the specimen signature in Guteza’s sworn statement and compare it with Espera’s actual signature on her notarial records and other official documents.
On Oct. 10, the NBI transmitted its report to the court, finding differences in the size and proportion, writing slant, letter forms, pen pressure, and manner of execution of line strokes.
After reviewing the incident report, the document submitted by Espera, and the findings of the NBI report, the Manila RTC concluded that the lawyer had no part in the notarization of Guteza’s statement.
The court said there was ‘no indication of any lapse in Espera’s notarial practice that could have led to the purported notarization of the sinumpaang salaysay [sworn affidavit].’
‘Hence, Atty. Espera is hereby cleared of any liability arising from the notarization of the subject sinumpaang salaysay,’ it said.
The court, however, found that Guteza and all those who made use of the document ‘not only introduced the forged and notarized Sinumpaang Salaysay, but also actively participated in its falsification.’
‘Similarly, all other persons who made use of or uttered the Sinumpaang Salaysay signed by Mr. Guteza shall be liable for falsification, noting that ‘in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger,” the Manila RTC said.
It added that the falsification incident was referred to the Department of Justice for further investigation and the filing of appropriate charges against Guteza and other individuals who used or presented the sworn statement.