The counsel for Leyte Rep. and former Speaker Martin Romualdez said the Office of the Ombudsman should dismiss the flood control plunder complaint against him in the face of several affidavits with conflicting claims about alleged kickback deliveries in cash-filled suitcases.
Romualdez cited 32 witness statements, including recantations from Orly Guteza and five ex-bodyguards, denying cash deliveries to him, while the Office of the Ombudsman said it has 28 additional witnesses against Romualdez aside from the remaining ex-bodyguards who claimed to have made the deliveries.
Lawyer Ade Fajardo invoked the equipoise rule, which states that amid two conflicting versions, there is no moral certainty to support a conviction and the presumption of innocence prevails.
“When the evidence for or against the accused or the respondent is on the balance, meaning that there is equal weight of testimony, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the respondent or the accused, because we always have to adhere to the constitutional presumption of innocence,” Fajardo said on Bilyonaryo News Channel’s “On Point.”
“In this case, if that is the case, if it is a numbers game, then the Ombudsman has no reason to maintain this case but must dismiss it in favor of the accused because of that presumption,” he added.
He made the statement after Romualdez filed a supplemental counter-affidavit attaching Guteza’s recantation and the sworn statements of 25 former employees of ex-lawmaker Elizaldy Co.
He also submitted earlier the recantations of the five members of the so-called “maleta boys” who claimed to have been involved in the deliveries.
Romualdez cited the equipoise rule in his supplemental counter-affidavit, saying his prosecution cannot be justified.
He also said Guteza’s recantation and the affidavits of denial and non-participation of Co’s former employees undermine the factual premise of the complaint against him, which was that Co’s employees regularly delivered cash-filled suitcases to him.
He noted Guteza’s denial of participation in three cash deliveries to his house.
“These factual discrepancies are crucial and undermine the foundation of complainant SPI’s [Special Panel of Investigators] theory against me,” he said.
He added that the affidavits of denial and non-participation that he submitted show that the ever-changing story was due to other people being made to adopt a prepared narrative even though they were not involved in the cash deliveries.
The Office of the Ombudsman is conducting a preliminary investigation into the plunder, bribery, graft, and money laundering complaint against Romualdez and Co alleging that they masterminded a scheme to collect kickbacks from flood control projects.