Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano said the recantations of witnesses in the plunder complaint against Leyte Rep. and former Speaker Martin Romualdez may not necessarily lead to its dismissal, explaining that the original affidavit may have greater weight if irregularities such as bribery are found.
Clavano said the Office of the Ombudsman has a lot of questions about the recantations, such as why the witnesses appeared to have gone into hiding after they took back their earlier statements.
Clavano also said the office received information that the witnesses were being paid to recant.
“Higit pa doon, may information pa tayo na nababayaran po yung mga tao na ito para mag-recant. So it does raise more questions. Actually, there are more questions about the recantation than there are about the first affidavit,” he said in a press conference.
“If the investigators are able to show that the recanted statements or the affidavit of recantation was attended by irregularities and bribery, then it could make the case for the investigators,” he added.
Asked who paid the alleged bribes, he said the Office of the Ombudsman would have to keep details confidential for now, but it has received a USB drive with pictures, videos, and screen recordings.
Clavano made the statements after Romualdez’s lawyer Ade Fajardo said the Ombudsman should dismiss the flood control complaint against Romualdez.
Fajardo said there is no credible witness tying Romualdez to the flood control scandal or any irregular flood control project.
He had submitted recantations from some of the “maleta boys” or former security aides of ex-lawmaker Elizady Co, as well as the recantation of ex-aide and Senate witness Orly Guteza denying that they delivered money to the former Speaker’s house.
He likewise submitted sworn statements of 25 former Co employees denying claims that cash-filled suitcases were delivered to Romualdez.
But Clavano said it is “very misleading” to say that the recantations were detrimental to the case.
He said the recantations will not erase their first affidavits implicating Romualdez. What will be done is that the first and second affidavits will be compared to determine which among the two is the truth, he said.
“Hindi po tama na dahil lang po may recantation, nabura na iyong dati nilang sinasabi,” he said.
“Ibig sabihin, dagdag ebidensya pa po iyan. Hindi siya nakakabawas sa ebidensya ng investigators natin, kundi dagdag ho siya,” he added.
He said that legally speaking, it is the prosecution’s task to say which affidavit represents the truth.
He also said resolving the complaint is not about who submitted more witness affidavits, but about the quality of the affidavits.
“If the investigators can prove that indeed, a lot of irregularities attended the recantation, then the quality of the first affidavit must be upheld,” he said.