THE recantations of Orly Guteza and several members of the so-called “Maleta Boys” cannot be treated as additional evidence that strengthens the complaints against former Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, his lawyer and spokesperson Atty. Ade Fajardo said Tuesday.
He stressed that calling the recantations “dagdag ebidensiya” does not, by itself, make the evidence against the former Speaker stronger.
“Well, we respectfully disagree po,” Fajardo, a former national president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), said in rejecting Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano’s position that the original statements and the recantations should both be treated as evidence in the Office of the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation into Romualdez’s alleged involvement in anomalous flood-control projects.
Clavano had said a recantation is “not an eraser” but additional evidence because the original statement and the later version must be placed side by side to determine which is true.
Fajardo said that comparison should expose, not cure, the conflicts in the witness accounts. A witness who first claimed personal knowledge and later denied the central allegation creates a credibility issue that investigators must resolve before filing a case, he said.
Fajardo rejected the position that the witnesses’ withdrawal of their earlier allegations could somehow bolster the evidence against Romualdez, saying the recantations instead raise questions about the very statements previously used to implicate the former Speaker.
He said describing the recantations as “dagdag ebidensiya” appears to be an attempt to keep the case against Romualdez alive despite witnesses backing away from their previous allegations.
Fajardo added in the statement: “Mukhang nagsasabi lang ang tanggapan ng Ombudsman ng mga ganoong salita para sabihin na buhay pa ang kaso nito.”
For the defense, Fajardo said, a witness who withdraws or disowns an earlier account does not automatically provide stronger evidence against the person previously accused.
Rather, the recantations should be examined for what they say about the credibility and reliability of the original allegations, particularly when the witnesses themselves are now disputing or withdrawing their previous statements.
Fajardo maintained that the strength of a case must rest on competent evidence that independently links Romualdez to the alleged wrongdoing, and not on the mere characterization of recantations as new or additional evidence.
The former Speaker has repeatedly denied the accusations against him and maintained that the complaints should be resolved on the basis of evidence and due process.
Fajardo said the fundamental question remains whether there is credible and sufficient evidence directly linking Romualdez to the alleged offenses.
Orly Guteza withdrew his allegation that he had participated in the delivery of cash-filled suitcases to an alleged residence associated with Romualdez. Several former security aides of ex-Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Zaldy Co have also recanted earlier accounts involving alleged cash deliveries.
Romualdez’s August 20 supplemental counter-affidavit placed those reversals beside 25 sworn statements from other former Co drivers and security aides. The 25 denied any knowledge of or participation in the delivery of money to Romualdez or any politician or government official. Some were people identified in earlier statements as companions in alleged delivery trips, but they denied taking part.
“Sa aming estimation, sa aming appreciation ng mga recantation na ‘yan, ang aming position ay talagang wala pong kaso na, sobrang hina na,” Fajardo said.
The defense is not asking the Ombudsman to automatically believe every recantation. It is asking investigators to compare the conflicting versions, examine how each statement was obtained and determine which account is supported by independent evidence.
Fajardo said calling the reversals additional evidence does not answer the central question: What credible testimony remains to establish that Romualdez knowingly received money?
The Ombudsman says it has evidence beyond the recanted witnesses. Romualdez’s camp maintains that any additional testimony must still be tested against the recantations, the 25 sworn denials, and the absence of a financial or project-level record directly tracing an unlawful trasaction to him.
On the conflicting statements, Fajardo said, “Dapat mag-resulta sa dismissal o pagbasura nitong mga reklamong ito laban kay Cong. Romualdez.”
Romualdez has repeatedly denied receiving money or participating in an unlawful flood-control scheme.
Fajardo urged the Ombudsman to assess the credibility of the witness accounts in the complete record, rather than treating the mere existence of two conflicting versions as evidence against the former Speaker.
metrosundaily
