THE Office of the Ombudsman’s tougher evidentiary standard under its 2026 Revised Rules of Procedure is being tested in the case involving a former Speaker.
In a 25-page Supplemental Counter-Affidavit Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam filed on Thursday, former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez asked the agency to determine whether the evidence against him can meet the new threshold before filing a criminal case.
The filing said the evidentiary record has changed significantly, citing 32 sworn statements that include three recantations, 25 new affidavits denying knowledge or participation, the earlier sworn statement of Allan Colesio, a former aide of former Party-list Rep. Zaldy Co of Ako Bicol, and the recantation of Orly Guteza.
The statements, according to Romualdez, raise questions about the personal knowledge and credibility of witnesses who sought to connect him to alleged deliveries of cash-filled suitcases.
At the center of the filing is Section 3, Rule V of the 2026 Ombudsman Rules of Procedure, which requires prosecutors to determine whether the evidence establishes a prima facie case with reasonable certainty of conviction.
‘The evidentiary standard of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction was deliberately designed to elevate, and not merely restate, the former standard of probable cause,’ the filing stated.
The supplemental counter-affidavit also cited the rule’s requirement that the entirety of the evidence presented by the parties be admissible, credible and capable of being preserved and presented to establish the elements of the offense and the identity of those responsible.
Romualdez argued that this requirement means the Ombudsman must address evidentiary weaknesses at the preliminary investigation stage.
‘Admissibility and credibility are thus not concerns reserved for the trial court; they are integral to this Honorable Office’s own determination of whether a case should be filed at all,’ the filing said.
According to the filing, no contractor has stated that money was paid to Romualdez, no Department of Public Works and Highways official has said he demanded or received a kickback, no identified project has been traced to a payment to him, and no financial record has traced alleged unlawful proceeds to his assets.
The filing further argued that the witness record now includes alleged delivery companions who deny taking part, former aides who deny knowledge of cash deliveries, and witnesses who have withdrawn or disowned earlier statements.
He asked the Ombudsman to identify what admissible, credible and preservable evidence remains after the recantations and direct denials and to dismiss the complaints if the remaining evidence fails to meet the standard under the 2026 rules.