THE Office of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila City has cleared lawyer Petchie Rose Espera of any criminal or administrative liability over the purported notarization of the sworn affidavit of former marine officer Orly Regala Guteza, accusing former House speaker Martin Romualdez and resigned Ako Bicol Party List Rep. Zaldy Co of receiving kickbacks from flood control projects.
In an 11-page order, Manila RTC Executive Judge Carolina Icasiano-Sison also referred the supposed falsification of Guteza’s affidavit before the Department of Justice (DOJ) for further investigation and filing of appropriate charges against the latter and all other persons who used or presented his sworn affidavit.
It can be recalled that Guteza submitted the sworn affidavit during his testimony last month before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee which is investigating the involvement of government officials and private individuals in various ghost and substandard flood control projects across the country.
Guteza was presented before the committee by Senator Rodante Marcoleta as a surprise witness.
Sison’s order stemmed from the incident report filed by Espera on September 25, 2025, claiming that Guteza’s affidavit was presented before the Senate hearing and disseminated to the public through social media platforms.
She further relayed that the said document bears her name, notarial commission details and signature, making it appeared as if she had notarized the same.
However, the lawyer denied having notarized or signed the said documents and that the notarial signature and seal attributed to her are falsified and unauthorized.
She further claimed that upon verification of her notarial register, there is no entry corresponding to said document which confirms that the same is spurious.
Upon receipt of the incident report, the executive judge set the case for hearing on September 30 but only Espera showed up.
‘Accordingly, in view of the finding that Atty. Espera appears to be the victim of the incident, her signature and notarial details having been forged, there exists no basis for the imposition of administrative liability against the said notary public under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,’ the order read.
‘Hence, Atty. Espera is hereby cleared of any liability arising from the notarization of the subject Sinumpaang Salaysay,’ it added.
Considering that Guteza’s affidavit contains spurious notarial details, a forged notary’s signature, and was presented in a public hearing before Senate, Judge Sison said Guteza and all persons who made use of said documents ‘actively participated in its falsification.’
‘In this instance, considering that Mr. Guteza presented the Sinumpaang Salaysay during the public hearing and is deemed to be the author (of falsification) thereof, appropriate falsification charges shall be filed against him,’ the order stated.
‘Similarly, all other persons who made use 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,’ it added.