CONFLICTING sworn accounts surrounding the alleged delivery of cash-filled suitcases have widened scrutiny of the ‘maleta’ allegations, as the Office of the Ombudsman weighs competing versions from witnesses linked to the supposed transactions.
The latest dispute involves former marine Orly Guteza, who previously claimed that he participated in deliveries of suitcases containing cash but later withdrew his allegations and denied having personal knowledge of the supposed transactions.
His reversal came as 25 former employees of former Party-list Rep. Zaldy Co of Ako, including drivers and security aides, submitted sworn statements disputing accounts attributed to the so-called ‘maleta boys.’
The affidavits were included in a supplemental counter-affidavit filed before the Ombudsman by former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, who is challenging allegations that he received cash from purported deliveries.
According to Romualdez’s counsel, Ade Fajardo, the 25 former employees denied that they participated in or witnessed deliveries of money to politicians or government officials. Some also claimed that they had been offered money to sign prepared affidavits.
Guteza had earlier emerged as a key witness during a Senate Blue-Ribbon committee hearing, where he claimed that he worked as a security consultant for Co and participated in alleged cash deliveries.
He later recanted, claiming that Sen. Rodante Marcoleta and former congressman Michael Defensor instructed him to make allegations despite his lack of personal knowledge of the supposed deliveries.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said Guteza’s reversal did not surprise him, saying he had observed what he described as coaching during the 2025 Senate hearing.
In the supplemental filing, Romualdez’s camp argued that Guteza’s original and subsequent accounts should be compared during the preliminary investigation.
The filing said investigators should examine the circumstances under which each statement was made and determine the reasons behind the change in Guteza’s account.
The defense maintained that the issue is different from recantations made after testimony in court or following a conviction because the Ombudsman has yet to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to bring the case to trial.