A RECANTATION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ERASE THE EARLIER STATEMENT

Philippine courts generally treat recantations with caution. A witness cannot always make an earlier statement disappear simply by signing a new affidavit that contradicts it.

Investigators and courts compare the two versions. They examine when each was made, whether the witness had personal knowledge, how specific the account was, whether it was voluntary, and whether other evidence supports it.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that recantations can be unreliable because witnesses may be pressured, paid, frightened, or persuaded to change their story. That does not mean every recantation is false. It means the second statement must be tested instead of automatically accepted.

For readers, the practical rule is simple: a changed affidavit creates a credibility problem that investigators must resolve. It is not an eraser.

THE ORIGINAL ACCOUNT ALREADY HAD A SERIOUS AUTHENTICATION PROBLEM

Before the recantation, the first affidavit was already under scrutiny because the lawyer whose name appeared as the notary reportedly denied notarizing it. A Manila executive judge later recommended a preliminary investigation for possible falsification.

That defect does not automatically prove every factual claim in the document was false. It does raise an obvious question about how the affidavit was produced and whether normal safeguards were bypassed.

The new allegation that other political figures helped prepare the earlier statement makes the document trail even more important. Investigators should identify who drafted it, who arranged the signing, who supplied the details, and how the disputed notarization entered the record.

THE RECANTATION DOES NOT BY ITSELF CLEAR ROMUALDEZ OR CO

Guteza's withdrawal weakens any case that depends heavily on his earlier account. It does not establish that Romualdez or Co is innocent of every allegation connected to flood-control funds.

The Ombudsman's preliminary investigation into alleged kickbacks must be assessed on the whole record. That may include procurement documents, financial records, contractor testimony, communications, project inspections, and evidence from witnesses other than Guteza.

Romualdez and Co have denied the accusations. Those denials, Guteza's first account, and his recantation all need to be tested against independent evidence.

THE NEW ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MARCOLETA AND DEFENSOR ARE STILL ALLEGATIONS

The same caution must apply to Guteza's new story. His claim that Marcoleta and Defensor coached him or helped manufacture the earlier accusation is not proven merely because it appears in a later affidavit.

If investigators rejected the first statement without testing it, they would be careless. If they accepted the second statement without testing it, they would repeat the same mistake.

Marcoleta and Defensor must be given the chance to answer. Investigators must then look for communications, witnesses, drafts, schedules, or other records that could confirm or contradict Guteza's new account.

AFFIDAVITS ARE STARTING POINTS, NOT COMPLETE PROOF

An affidavit records what a person says. It is not automatically the same as tested testimony. In court, the witness may have to appear, identify the statement, explain inconsistencies, and answer questions from the other side.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that affidavits are generally treated as hearsay unless the person who made them is presented as a witness. The precise rules depend on the proceeding, and an Ombudsman preliminary investigation is not the same as a full criminal trial. Even so, the core lesson is useful: signed paper cannot replace corroboration and questioning when the story keeps changing.

For the public, this is where patience becomes necessary. The loudest interpretation may arrive first, but the evidentiary record takes longer to build.