Allegations against Romualdez ‘no longer credible,’ says lawyer

MANILA, Philippines — Retired marine Orly Guteza’s recantation of his original testimony involving the flood control scandal has undermined the allegations of the remaining 14 Maleta Boys, making it no longer credible, a public interest and human rights lawyer said.

Litigation lawyer Antonio “Audie” Bucoy made the pronouncement in defense of former Speaker Martin Romualdez, who he claimed was being targeted by the Ombudsman amid its supposed 42 witnesses against the lawmaker.

READ: Guteza recants: Marcoleta, Defensor tapped me to accuse Romualdez

Article continues after this advertisement

“Hindi ito laban ng paramihan ng testigo eh. Ito ay labanan ng kredibilidad at kalidad ng testigo. Gaya ng 18 (Maleta Boys), apat ang tumuligsa diyan. Pero pinanindigan nung apat kung bakit hindi totoo ‘yung mga sinabi nila noon,” he said in a dzMM interview over the weekend.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

(This isn’t a battle of who has more witnesses. It is a battle regarding the credibility and quality of the witnesses. Take the Maleta Boy case, for instance, four people testified against the accused there. Yet, those four later stood by their statements explaining why what they had said previously was untrue.)

Bucoy was referring to Guteza and some of the 18 bodyguards who recanted their statements claiming they delivered money to lawmakers, particularly funds that supposedly came from resigned lawmaker Zaldy Co, who served as chairperson of the House committee on appropriations during the 19th Congress.

READ: Ombudsman now has 42 witnesses vs Romualdez

However, Bucon noted that the most important retraction was from Guteza, who also happened to be the first to make allegations against Romualdez in a Senate blue ribbon committee hearing.

Article continues after this advertisement

“Kung maalala niyo, ang una hong lumutang diyan ay si Orly Guteza. Nung bigla siyang naglaho ng hindi pa siya nasusuri ng mahusay, lumutang bigla yung 18,” Bucoy added. 

(If you recall, the first person to surface in that matter was Orly Guteza. When he suddenly disappeared before he could be thoroughly examined, the 18 suddenly surfaced.

Article continues after this advertisement

The lawyer then asserted that the  allegations of Guteza and the 18 Maleta Boys were interconnected, and with Guteza’s retraction, supported by the assertions of 25 former Co aides, there is no more evidence against Romualdez.

“Kung pinabulaanan na ni Orly Guteza yung kanyang unang salaysay at sinabing ito ay pinilit lamang sa kanya at merong panunuhol na kaakibat ito, dagdag pa natin yung sinabi nung 25 na tinuligsa rin yung 18, ano pang kalalabasan nito? Wala hong ebidensiya. Hindi kapani-paniwala yung natitira,” he said.

(If Orly Guteza has already retracted his initial statement, claiming he was coerced into making it and that bribery was involved, and we also consider the testimony of the “25” who denounced the 18, what does that leave us with? There is no evidence. What remains is simply not credible.)

Furthermore, Bucoy claimed the Ombudsman is resorting to selective prosecution of those allegedly involved in the flood control scam, specifically Romualdez, as the  original allegations of the 18 Maleta Boys were directed not only against him but other lawmakers and public officials as well.

“Namimili sila kung alin ang gagamiting ebidensiya, alin ang hindi at kung ating maaalala, yun hong testimonya 18, hindi lang naman si dating Speaker Romualdez ang tinukoy dito eh,” he said.

(They are selecting which evidence to use and which not to; and if we recall, regarding Testimony 18, it wasn’t just former Speaker Romualdez who was identified there.)

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

Office of the Ombudsman investigators cited Guteza’s testimony in the supplemental complaint-affidavit for plunder, direct bribery, graft and corruption against Romualdez and Co. /mr