THE investigation involving former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez has entered a new phase after his legal team announced the submission of additional affidavits from 25 former personnel connected to former Ako Bicol Party-list Rep. Zaldy Co of Ako Bicol.
The new statements are expected to challenge earlier allegations involving alleged cash deliveries and form part of Romualdez’s supplemental counter-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Romualdez’s lawyer and spokesperson, Ade Fajardo, said the affidavits include the reported recantation of Orly Guteza, a former marine and security aide of Co, who previously testified that he delivered suitcases containing cash to Romualdez but later withdrew his accusation.
The defense said the 25 former Co aides denied involvement in any alleged money deliveries to Romualdez or other government officials. They also claimed that they were encouraged to join a witness group in exchange for financial compensation and that affidavits had already been prepared for them.
‘They have come forward and directly contradicted the earlier accounts of the 18 Maleta Boys presented by Attorney Baligod,’ Fajardo said, referring to the former uniformed personnel who allegedly provided earlier testimonies against Romualdez.
Lacson not surprised
GUTEZA’s recantation is not surprising, considering that he was identified as a ‘coached’ witness during a Senate Blue-Ribbon committee hearing last year, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who was then the panel’s chairman, said Thursday.
Lacson said Guteza’s backtracking was foreseeable after noting that he was ‘coached’ by Sen. Rodante Marcoleta during the hearing on September 23-and after some of the ‘Maleta boys’ did the same earlier.
‘Since it is on record that Marcoleta coached Guteza, it is not surprising that Guteza would backtrack on his claims someday,’ he said.
The backtracking of the so-called ‘maleta boys’-how the former bodyguards of Co and Guteza were described after they claimed dropping off luggages of cash at the residence of several politicians-‘has become a dime a dozen so it’s not surprising that Guteza, the original ‘Maleta Boy’ a.k.a. Basura, followed suit,’ Lacson added.
He said the case of Guteza and the other ‘Maleta boys’ smacks of attempts to personally gain from their alleged involvement in the flood control mess.
‘In the words of swindlers, it’s ‘lagareng hapon’ or ‘doble kita,’ or 40-40 vision,’ he said.
Earlier, Lacson had noted that during the Blue-Ribbon panel hearing which he chaired in September, Marcoleta was observed to be coaching Guteza by prompting him on what to say in Guteza’s affidavit.
Also, Lacson cited Senate CCTV records showing Guteza went to Marcoleta’s office, spending half an hour there, before appearing at the Blue-Ribbon hearing.
Guteza, after a long absence, resurfaced and recanted his statements, adding that Marcoleta and former Party-list Rep. Michael Defensor of Anak Kalusugan had him ‘testify’ in exchange for money and scholarships for his children.
Conflicting statements
FAJARDO argued that the conflicting statements from witnesses have weakened the credibility of the accusations. He said several individuals who were previously mentioned as participants in alleged cash deliveries are now denying that the events happened.
‘It is no longer credible. There is no credible testimony anymore,’ Fajardo said, arguing that repeated changes in witness accounts have affected the reliability of the allegations.
Fajardo also questioned how witnesses could provide details about incidents they allegedly did not personally experience. He said the affidavits of the 25 former aides were important because some of them had been named in previous accounts as drivers or companions during supposed deliveries.
‘Some of them were named as drivers’ companions, but they themselves are denying it. So what is the credibility of a statement saying that driver X and Y were part of the delivery when X and Y are actually saying it never happened?’ Fajardo said.
The defense further claimed that several witnesses had been offered financial rewards to participate in the original complaint. Fajardo said the identities of those allegedly involved in making the offers would be disclosed once the affidavits are formally submitted.
Romualdez’s legal team maintained that the complaint lacks direct evidence connecting the former speaker to the alleged cash deliveries. Fajardo said the case relies mainly on changing oral testimonies rather than forensic or documentary proof.
Noticeable
‘WHAT is noticeable is that this investigation has been ongoing for several months, yet there is still no forensic evidence, no object, and no documentary evidence linking the former Speaker,’ Fajardo said.
He added that the defense believes the allegations should not be sustained based only on inconsistent statements.
‘It is a non-case. It should be dismissed because there is no evidence left except stories, and those stories are different and constantly changing,’ Fajardo said.
Meanwhile, other witnesses have continued to stand by their earlier statements, while the Ombudsman proceeds with its preliminary investigation. The investigation involves allegations related to possible plunder, graft, bribery, and money laundering. However, the filing of counter-affidavits does not mean criminal charges have already been filed in court or that any party has been found guilty.
Fajardo said the Ombudsman should conduct a complete and impartial evaluation of all evidence before reaching a decision.
‘The result should not be considered predetermined. We can only hope for fairness,’ Fajardo said, emphasizing that the defense expects a careful review of all submissions.
Romualdez has consistently denied receiving money from Co or his personnel. His defense argued that the accusations appear to rely heavily on the fact that Romualdez was Speaker of the House while Co served as chair of the House appropriations committee, rather than on direct proof of wrongdoing.
Fajardo maintained that the legislative budget process involves several institutions, including Congress and the executive branch, and that holding a leadership position alone does not establish participation in an illegal transaction.
‘Just because he was Speaker of the House when Zaldy Co was Appropriations [committee] chairman does not mean that he controlled or participated in every transaction connected to the budget process,’ Fajardo said.
The defense said it would continue submitting documents and cooperating with the Ombudsman’s investigation, insisting that the allegations should be judged based on evidence and not solely on disputed testimonies.