GUTEZA RECANTED. THAT DID NOT CLEAR ROMUALDEZ.

Orlando “Orly” Guteza withdrew the story he told the Senate about delivering suitcases of cash to Martin Romualdez. His recantation damages his credibility, weakens his original accusation, and gives Romualdez a serious defense.

It did not clear Romualdez. The broader flood-control investigation remains open, and the Office of the Ombudsman says it has witnesses beyond Guteza whose accounts have yet to be publicly tested.

Romualdez’s lawyers have asked the Ombudsman to dismiss the complaints against him. That request must be weighed against Guteza’s two sworn accounts, the problems surrounding his first affidavit, the competing claims of pressure and payment, and whatever independent evidence investigators can produce.

WHAT GUTEZA FIRST SAID

Guteza appeared before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on September 25, 2025. He identified himself as a former Marine who had worked as a security aide or consultant for then Ako Bicol representative Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co.

He claimed that he helped transport suitcases filled with cash. Inside Co’s circle, he said, the money was called “basura.”

Guteza described 46 suitcases containing roughly ₱48 million each. He claimed that 35 were delivered to a property associated with Romualdez at 42 McKinley Street, while 11 remained with Co.

The 35 suitcases would amount to approximately ₱1.68 billion. Guteza also said he personally joined deliveries to the Romualdez property around three times, placing him inside the alleged operation as a first-hand witness.

Romualdez denied the accusation and described Guteza’s testimony as fabricated and coached. He said the McKinley property had been under renovation since January 2024 and was unoccupied except for construction workers.

THE FIRST VERSION ALREADY HAD HOLES

Guteza’s original account had a serious problem before he recanted.

Lawyer Petchie Rose Espera, whose name appeared as the notary on Guteza’s first affidavit, denied preparing, signing, or notarizing the document. She said the signature and notarial details attributed to her were falsified and unauthorized, while reports said the document was not recorded in her notarial register.

That raised immediate questions about who prepared the affidavit and how it reached the Senate. It did not settle whether every claim inside it was false, but it made independent support even more important.

There was another warning sign elsewhere in the flood-control hearings. Contractor Pacifico “Curlee” Discaya, who had earlier mentioned Romualdez and Co in connection with alleged kickbacks, later said he had no direct transaction with either man and that their names had been used by other people.

These weaknesses gave Romualdez valid grounds to challenge the accusations long before Guteza changed his account.

WHAT GUTEZA SAYS NOW

In a new sworn affidavit dated August 13, 2026, Guteza said he had no personal knowledge of the suitcase deliveries he previously described. He withdrew his claim that he joined three deliveries to Romualdez’s property and said he had never personally met, seen, or directly communicated with Romualdez.

Guteza then accused former representative Mike Defensor and Senator Rodante Marcoleta of arranging his original Senate appearance and shaping the story he presented.

According to Guteza, he met Defensor and Marcoleta at a Japanese restaurant in Pasay on September 24, 2025, one day before the Senate hearing. He alleged that an affidavit was prepared on a laptop and that Marcoleta edited portions of the Tagalog text.

Guteza also alleged that he was offered money, protection, and educational support for his children in exchange for his testimony. These are allegations in his new affidavit and have not been independently proven.

Marcoleta denied conspiring with Defensor and called Guteza’s recantation implausible. He argued that a detailed account involving numerous people and cash deliveries could not have been created and rehearsed during a brief restaurant meeting.

Marcoleta also alleged that Guteza’s family had been threatened and that the recantation was forced. That accusation remains unproven.

Senator Panfilo Lacson said Guteza had appeared to be coached during the Senate hearing. Lacson also cited Senate security footage showing Guteza entering Marcoleta’s office and staying there for around half an hour before appearing before the committee.

That visit is relevant, but it does not reveal what was discussed inside the office. Investigators still need testimony or records showing what happened before Guteza took his seat at the hearing.

The public now has two incompatible sworn accounts from the same person. Investigators must compare both versions with information from people who did not help prepare either affidavit, along with phone records, messages, locations, payments, and security footage.

WHAT ROMUALDEZ SUBMITTED

Romualdez’s lawyers filed a supplemental counter-affidavit asking the Ombudsman to dismiss complaints involving alleged plunder, bribery, graft, and money laundering. They argued that Guteza had been presented as an important link to Romualdez and that his recantation broke that connection.

The filing also included 25 affidavits from current and former Co employees. GMA News reported that 13 of them alleged that lawyer Levito Baligod and other people had offered money for statements implicating Romualdez.

The remaining 12 reportedly denied seeing the alleged cash deliveries but did not claim they had been offered money.

All 25 affidavits deserve examination. If any person was offered money, investigators should look for names, dates, messages, calls, meetings, prepared documents, and any record of payment.

A statement from an employee who never saw a delivery can help Romualdez, depending on that person’s assignment and access. Someone positioned at the property or involved in transportation may be able to dispute a specific claim, while someone assigned elsewhere may have no way of knowing what happened.

The same level of checking should be applied to claims that money was offered for affidavits. Repeating an accusation across several sworn statements does not replace the need for proof.

THE OTHER RECANTATIONS

Guteza was not the only former Co aide to withdraw accusations.

In February 2026, a group of 18 men described as former Co security personnel surfaced with allegations about cash deliveries involving Co, Romualdez, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., and other people.

Several later withdrew their statements and alleged that financial help and protection had been offered in exchange for the original accusations. Their withdrawals added another serious credibility problem to the investigation.

Reports have not always grouped Guteza and the other former Co aides consistently. The Ombudsman’s latest public count on August 28 was more useful: 14 remaining witnesses from an original group of 18, plus 28 new witnesses.

The competing claims follow the same pattern. Some witnesses allege that they were offered something to accuse Romualdez, while Guteza alleges that he was pressured into making his first accusation and Marcoleta alleges that he was pressured into withdrawing it.

None of those claims can be settled through press conferences. Investigators need to identify who approached each witness, who prepared the affidavits, where the meetings occurred, and whether communications or payments support either version.

WHAT REMAINS OUTSIDE GUTEZA

As of August 28, the Ombudsman said it had identified 42 witnesses. That figure consisted of 14 from the original group of 18 and 28 additional witnesses.

The public does not yet know the identities, access, or complete accounts of most of those people. Calling them witnesses does not tell us whether they personally handled money, saw deliveries, reviewed records, or heard the allegations from somebody else.

Forty-two weak witnesses can still produce a weak case. One solid bank record can carry more weight than a room full of people repeating the same unsupported accusation.

The Ombudsman has also said that the quality of the testimony is more important than the number of witnesses. That quality can be judged only after the witnesses explain what they know and how they know it.

The complaints under preliminary investigation allege that Romualdez and Co participated in a scheme that collected approximately ₱56 billion in illegal proceeds connected to flood-control projects between 2022 and 2025.

That figure remains an allegation. Investigators still have to show where the money came from, how it moved, who controlled it, and whether any part reached Romualdez.

There are also court orders connected to the investigation. The Court of Appeals issued a freeze order covering bank accounts and insurance policies belonging to an unnamed prominent legislator, whom Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla publicly identified as Romualdez.

The Sandiganbayan issued a precautionary hold departure order against Romualdez and later rejected his request to lift it. These are temporary steps connected to the investigation and are not findings that he received stolen money.

WHERE THE CASE STANDS

Romualdez is a respondent in complaints undergoing preliminary investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman. The complaints involve alleged plunder, direct and indirect bribery, graft, and money laundering.

No formal court charges have been filed against him, and he remains presumed innocent. The Ombudsman still has to decide whether the evidence is strong enough to bring the complaints to court.

The accusations need proof. Romualdez’s defense, including the 25 affidavits and the allegations that witnesses were recruited or paid, also needs to be checked against records and people with direct knowledge.

WHAT THE RECANTATION CHANGES

The firm conclusion from the public record is that Guteza gave two incompatible sworn versions. His reliability has been badly damaged, and his new accusations against Defensor and Marcoleta now need independent support.

Questions about whether the first account was manufactured, whether the second account was voluntary, and whether any money reached Romualdez remain unanswered. Guteza’s reversal provides no answer about what the other witnesses know or whether investigators possess documents and financial records that support their allegations.

His recantation should be examined, not brushed aside. It should also be treated as one part of the evidence instead of being allowed to settle every other part of the investigation.

Investigators need bank records, contractor payments, phone locations, security logs, property entries, messages, and the movement of funds. They must also check the claims of coaching, offers, threats, and pressure surrounding both versions of Guteza’s story.

If the Ombudsman cannot produce independent evidence connecting Romualdez to the alleged money, it should dismiss the complaints. A large witness count cannot rescue accusations that have no reliable support.

If that independent evidence exists, investigators should present it and let a court decide what it proves.

Guteza recanted. That did not clear Romualdez.