THE camp of the former Speaker on Tuesday raised concerns over the use of the term ‘mastermind’ by Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla while the preliminary investigation remains ongoing, saying such statements may create the impression that a conclusion has already been reached before the evidence and the defense’s arguments have been fully reviewed.
Lawyer Ade Fajardo said calling former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez a ‘mastermind’ before the completion of the investigation ‘could create an appearance of prejudgment.’
Fajardo said accusations should not get ahead of the legal process, particularly while the Office of the Ombudsman is still examining witness statements, supporting documents, and the defense’s submissions.
The defense has maintained that public statements suggesting guilt or prosecution before the evaluation of all evidence may create an appearance of prejudgment. It earlier asked Remulla to be recused from the case, citing concerns over statements he made regarding the investigation.
In a statement, Fajardo said the defense was concerned that previous public remarks could give the impression that a conclusion had already been formed and that evidence was being sought to support an earlier position.
‘Well, from our perspective, we are concerned that because of the many public positions taken by the current Ombudsman, it appears that there may already be a prejudgment or that a conclusion has already been formed, and that evidence is now being pursued merely to support a legal conclusion that, in our view, does not actually exist,’ he said.
He said witness statements remain subject to evaluation, especially as some accounts have changed and additional evidence has yet to be fully presented to the defense.
‘The problem we encountered there is that, at this stage of the investigation, our rules, our laws, and even the Constitution itself require fairness and impartiality,’ Fajardo said.
Fajardo added that labels made during a pending investigation may influence public opinion and affect the perception of the case before investigators determine the strength of the evidence.
He urged investigators to resolve the complaints based on evidence properly disclosed and weighed during the proceedings, rather than on statements or descriptions made while the investigation remains pending.
The defense also rejected the claim that the recantations of former marine Orly Guteza and members of the so-called ‘Maleta Boys’ should be treated as additional evidence strengthening the complaints.
Fajardo said the recantations do not automatically make the allegations stronger and instead raise questions about the credibility of the original statements.
Fajardo disagreed with Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano’s view that both the original accounts and recantations should be considered evidence, saying conflicting statements must be carefully evaluated before any legal action is taken.
He said witnesses withdrawing previous allegations do not strengthen the case but highlight issues that investigators must resolve.
The defense maintained that the complaints should rely on independent and credible evidence directly linking Romualdez to the alleged wrongdoing, not merely on the existence of conflicting statements.
Guteza and several former security aides of former Party-list Rep. Zaldy Co of Ako Bicol have recanted earlier claims involving alleged cash deliveries.