Former Speaker Martin Romualdez formally sought bail on Monday in his P7.4 billion plunder case, arguing that the prosecution cannot show strong evidence of his guilt and citing, among others, the recantations and contradicting affidavits on the alleged delivery of kickbacks to him.
Romualdez, the incumbent Leyte representative, is currently detained at the Quezon City jail dormitory. He is accused of receiving kickbacks from flood control and other infrastructure projects.
The co-accused are former lawmaker Elizaldy Co, Romualdez’ personal aide Joselyn Serenio, and businessman Felicito Guevarra.
In his petition for bail filed through counsel, Romualdez contended that the Office of the Ombudsman resolution indicting him was based on a chain of inferences rather than direct proof.
“The Resolution’s ultimate finding illustrates the point. It declares that accused Romualdez ‘repeatedly received suitcases containing cash from Co at least fifteen times for the years 2022 and 2025.’ The accounts on which that finding rests do not state that any witness saw accused Romualdez receive a suitcase,” he said.
He said there was no proof that he personally demanded or collected kickbacks.
He also said Co’s own acts and declarations could not be used to support the claim of conspiracy and his involvement since there is no other evidence outside of Co’s claims.
According to him, Co’s actions as well as those of the contractors, Department of Public Works and Highways officials, and security aides pertaining to the delivery of cash-filled suitcases could be weighed in relation to their actions, but do not show his participation.
He said the delivery evidence may show that luggage was transported, but these do not support the allegation that he received these.
Romualdez also took note of the recantations of the witnesses who spoke about the alleged cash deliveries to his address.
He said that while he is not saying that the affidavits are void or the witnesses are not credible, the recantations create a “material conflict in the evidence, bearing on credibility and on evidentiary weight.”
“The Office of the Ombudsman declined to give the recantations weight on the ground that recantations carry no automatic probative value, are viewed with suspicion, and may be procured by intimidation, pressure, or monetary consideration. Those observations describe why a recantation is scrutinized; they do not resolve the conflict,” he said.
“This Honorable Court, faced with two sworn and inconsistent accounts from the same witness, must weigh them, and the Prosecution, which bears the burden, must show that the original account is the stronger,” he added.
He said his being the Speaker and participating in the budget process do not prove that he used his office for a criminal purpose.
He also said alleged discrepancies in his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth are also not proof that he received and concealed proceeds from the kickbacks, since there is no proof connecting him to the alleged conspiracy.
Romualdez further contended that the P50 million threshold to support a plunder charge was not established.
He noted that the Office of the Ombudsman used an aggregate of assigned and estimated amounts and a separate, percentage-based estimate of alleged collections, but none of these had been traced to him.
“The PhP7,440,000,000.00 computation presents a difficulty of false precision: an exact peso figure has been assigned to each delivery although no witness counted, weighed, or verified the cash on any of them. The precision of the total is the precision of the labels and estimates from which it was summed, and it does not add to their reliability,” he said.
In seeking bail, Romualdez also said he is not a flight risk.
He noted that he participated in the Ombudsman and court proceedings and cooperated with the Independent Commission for Infrastructure.
He is also under regular medical care by his physicians and has close personal ties in the Philippines, he added.