Former Speaker Martin Romualdez has asked the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the plunder and graft complaints filed against him, saying the formal recantation of key prosecution witness Orly Guteza and 32 total sworn denials have left the graft probers’ case without a leg to stand on.
In a 25-page Supplemental Counter-Affidavit, Romualdez, through counsel, argued that the Special Panel of Investigators (SPI) no longer possesses the legal or factual standing to establish a prima facie case with reasonable certainty of conviction.
Romualdez cited the retraction by Guteza, the prime witness whose testimony previously served as the sole link connecting the former House leader to alleged suitcases of cash, referred to as “basura.”
In his August 13, 2026 Sinumpaang Salaysay, Guteza confessed under oath that he was “enticed, deceived, and coerced” into delivering false testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the SPI.
Guteza now categorically denied participating in three alleged cash deliveries to Romualdez’s supposed Forbes Park residence as he clarified that he never interacted with nor saw Romualdez at the property.
Guteza further disclosed that the narrative was orchestrated during a meeting with former Quezon City Representative Mike Defensor with the draft subsequently reviewed and revised by Senator Rodante Marcoleta, who allegedly remarked that Guteza’s account was the “missing link” needed to directly implicate Romualdez.
The supplemental pleading likewise claimed that Guteza’s retraction is reinforced by 32 sworn statements from personnel inside the operational network of former Ako Bicol Party-list Representative Elizaldy Co.
These include sworn statements from 25 former close-in guards, drivers, and support personnel spanning service years from 2019 to 2026 who affirmed that no deliveries of money or suitcases were ever made to politicians.
Furthermore, Romualdez noted that SPI original witnesses Belnard Tube, Rosebert Waupan, and Benny Bulontate executed formal affidavits abandoning their previous allegations, saying they were coached by handlers to give false statements.
Also, additional affidavits executed by Cecilio Larroder Jr., a security staff member named Balderama, Allan Colesio, and other aides independently contradicted specific delivery claims made by remaining accusers.
Romualdez’s supplemental counter-affidavit claimed that the 25 security aides, who held diverse roles ranging from medical personnel to drivers across multiple regions,.arrived at their denials independently without any possibility of a coordinated cover-up.
Moreover, several aides exposed recruitment efforts by lawyer Levito Baligod and 18 former bodyguards who allegedly offered financial rewards to form a “Batch 2” of witnesses.
Driver Arnilo Ramirez testified that he was brought to a hotel in early 2026 and presented with a pre-written affidavit containing claims he never witnessed, which he refused to sign.
“Once that supposed delivery link is removed, the same fundamental evidentiary gap remains: no contractor states that he paid me; no DPWH official states that I demanded or received a kickback… and no competent witness establishes my knowing receipt of the alleged cash,” the pleading said.
Meanwhile, Romualdez cited Villareal v. People on the right to present defense evidence during preliminary investigation alongside the Supreme Court’s equipoise rule in De Vera v. People.
His legal camp maintained that when evidence yields conflicting narratives, the constitutional presumption of innocence must tip the scale in favor of the respondent.
Romualdez noted that Section 3, Rule V of the 2026 Ombudsman Rules of Procedure mandates a higher evidentiary bar – prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction – which requires admissible and credible proof before an Information can be filed in court.
“Once that supposed delivery link is removed, the same fundamental evidentiary gap remains: no contractor states that he paid me; no DPWH official states that I demanded or received a kickback… and no competent witness establishes my knowing receipt of the alleged cash,” Romualdez’s submission read.
Romualdez also registered a formal objection regarding the SPI’s failure to serve a copy of its Reply to his legal team and reserved his right to submit further counter-arguments once the prosecution’s filings are properly furnished.
The case, docketed as OMB Case No. OMB-C-C-APR-26-0044, involves complaints for Plunder (RA 7080), Direct and Indirect Bribery (Arts. 210 and 211, RPC), Anti-Graft violations (RA 3019), and Money Laundering (RA 9160).#