Manila: The complaint against former House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez is primarily based on conflicting witness testimonies and lacks forensic or documentary evidence directly connecting him to the alleged cash deliveries, according to his legal counsel and spokesperson, lawyer Ade Fajardo.
According to Philippines News Agency, Fajardo made this assertion when questioned about the possibility of more witnesses recanting and how these conflicting statements might influence the Office of the Ombudsman's preliminary investigation. "We cannot predict, we cannot guess who else would retract or who else would say the truth," Fajardo stated during a press conference. He emphasized that the investigation has been ongoing for several months, highlighting the absence of forensic or documentary evidence linking Romualdez to the allegations.
Fajardo criticized the reliance on oral accounts that have evolved over time, noting the inherent unreliability of oral evidence. He pointed out that legal provisions against perjury and libel exist because such narratives can be easily fabricated. Notably, four of the 18 original "Maleta Boys" have recanted their accounts, including Retired Marine T/Sgt. Orly Guteza, who withdrew his allegation in a new affidavit reported on August 19.
Despite some witnesses maintaining their original statements, allegations have emerged that financial incentives were offered to induce recantations. Lawyer Levito Baligod submitted a flash drive purportedly relevant to these reversals, but Romualdez's camp has denied any influence or bribery of witnesses. Fajardo insisted that the case lacked evidence beyond inconsistent narratives, suggesting the case should be dismissed.
Fajardo also mentioned cyberlibel and perjury cases filed against Baligod and other witnesses, noting government agencies' involvement in pursuing such cases. These perjury complaints focus on allegedly false statements by witnesses in separate proceedings and do not replace the Ombudsman's duty to assess the cash-delivery scheme based on its evidence.
Fajardo affirmed that Romualdez had responded to the allegations and would submit the latest affidavits for consideration. He stressed that any resolution from the Ombudsman should be based on a thorough and impartial evaluation of evidence, responding to reports of a nearing decision after receiving party submissions.
The Ombudsman's order for Romualdez and co-respondents to submit counter-affidavits is part of a preliminary investigation, not indicative of filed criminal charges or guilt. Romualdez filed his initial counter-affidavit on August 7, and the defense planned to file a supplemental counter-affidavit, including statements from 25 former aides associated with former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Zaldy Co.
Once all required submissions are complete, the Ombudsman will submit the matter for resolution, weighing the complaint, counter-affidavits, recantations, and other evidence. Fajardo stated that the defense had addressed all allegations identified by the Ombudsman's special panel, maintaining that no transaction or project directly tied Romualdez to the alleged scheme.
Fajardo argued that the allegations seemed to rely on the positions held by Romualdez and Co in the House of Representatives. He emphasized that congressional budgeting is a collective process involving multiple branches of government and that holding the speakership alone does not establish participation in unlawful transactions.
