A supplemental affidavit running 25 pages has become the centerpiece of former House speaker Martin Romualdez’s bid to have the plunder and graft complaints against him thrown out, with the Leyte 1st district representative arguing that the case collapsed the moment its main accuser walked back his story.
The document, obtained by The Philippine STAR, was submitted to the special panel of investigators at the Office of the Ombudsman. In it, Romualdez contended that no prima facie evidence carrying a reasonable certainty of conviction can stand against him now that the central accusation has been withdrawn.
That accusation came from Orly Guteza, a former security aide to Zaldy Co, who had told the Senate Blue Ribbon committee that he ferried suitcases stuffed with cash — allegedly kickbacks from flood control projects — to the homes of both Romualdez and Co. Guteza later took back that account, claiming he had been pressured to name Romualdez on the instructions of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta and former congressman Mike Defensor.
Romualdez framed Guteza as the sole connective tissue in the government’s theory. “Guteza was supposed to supply the factual bridge between the alleged accumulation of funds attributed to Zaldy Co and their supposed delivery to me. He now states that this bridge was engineered and constructed for him – that the accusation was not drawn from his own personal knowledge, but was allegedly supplied, prepared, revised and presented to him for adoption,” he said.
The former speaker acknowledged that investigators are under no obligation to believe Guteza’s revised version, but pressed that they likewise cannot lean on what he called the witness’s “earlier, already compromised version” to sustain a finding of probable guilt.
Strip away the delivery narrative, Romualdez argued, and the prosecution is left with the same holes it started with: no contractor claiming to have paid him, no Department of Public Works and Highways official attesting to a kickback, no unlawful proceeds traced to his holdings, and no credible witness placing the alleged cash in his hands.
Beyond Guteza, the filing carried affidavits from 25 people — current and former staff of Co — who rejected the claim that Romualdez pocketed suitcases of kickback money. Three of them went further, stating that Levi Baligod, lawyer for the original 18 ex-bodyguards accusing Romualdez and Co, dangled money to draw them into a bloc nicknamed the “18 Marines.”
The wave of retractions has drawn a legislative response. Sen. Panfilo Lacson, describing fabricated testimony as a “lucrative business,” said he intends to file a measure stiffening penalties against anyone who pushes a witness into lying under oath.
“I will file a bill imposing heavier penalty and fine for ‘subornation of perjury’ or, if a person induces or forces another to commit perjury,” Lacson wrote on X.
He cautioned that Guteza’s about-face and the reversals of three so-called “maleta boys” should not be waved off as the close of the matter, since current statutes already reach those who engineer false testimony.
“Orly Guteza’s recantation should not end there. Republic Act No. 11594 which we passed in October 2021 has increased the penalty for perjury to ‘prision mayor’. Further, a person who induces another to commit perjury is also liable for being a principal by inducement,” Lacson said.
The senator noted that both the individuals smeared by false statements and law enforcement authorities hold the standing to bring charges against those who orchestrate perjury.
