MANILA, Philippines — Detained Sen. Rodante Marcoleta and former lawmaker Michael “Mike” Defensor could face a complaint for subornation of perjury following former Marine Orly Guteza’s reversal of testimony in the Senate’s investigation into alleged flood-control corruption, Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said.
Lacson raised the possibility of criminal complaints after Guteza withdrew his earlier allegations and accused Marcoleta and Defensor of pressuring him to make claims about alleged cash deliveries involving political figures.
However, there is currently no reported finding that Marcoleta or Defensor has been charged or convicted of subornation of perjury. Lacson’s remarks concern a possible complaint and investigation based on the evidence surrounding Guteza’s testimony and subsequent recantation.
Guteza Changes His Story
Guteza, a retired Marine and former security aide associated with former Ako Bicol Rep. Zaldy Co, previously made allegations involving alleged deliveries of cash in suitcases connected to the flood-control controversy.
In an affidavit dated August 13, 2026, Guteza reportedly withdrew his earlier claims and alleged that Marcoleta and Defensor pressured or persuaded him to testify against former House Speaker Martin Romualdez. He also claimed that money and scholarships for his children were offered in connection with his testimony. Those allegations remain claims and have not been established as fact by a court.
The recantation has raised questions about both Guteza’s original testimony and the circumstances surrounding his subsequent withdrawal.
The Palace has likewise said that authorities should investigate whether Guteza was manipulated into making either his original allegations or his later recantation. Malacañang stressed that neither version should simply be accepted without verification.
Lacson Points to Senate Hearing
Lacson said the sequence of events during a previous Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing led him to believe that Marcoleta appeared to be guiding Guteza on what to say in relation to his affidavit.
“Kung titingnan natin ang ebidensya, takbo ng pangyayari,” Lacson said, arguing that Marcoleta could potentially be among those investigated for subornation of perjury.
Lacson has also said that the person directly prejudiced by allegedly false testimony could potentially initiate a complaint, while government authorities such as the Department of Justice or the Office of the Ombudsman could conduct their own preliminary investigation.
The Philippine Star separately reported that Lacson believes the DOJ and Ombudsman could investigate possible perjury-related liability involving individuals allegedly behind Guteza’s testimony.
Why Subornation of Perjury Matters
The controversy has placed renewed attention on Republic Act No. 11594, which increased the penalties for perjury and amended Articles 183 and 184 of the Revised Penal Code.
The law provides penalties for knowingly making untruthful statements under oath and also covers the willful and knowing presentation of false testimony in judicial or official proceedings.
Philippine law also recognizes principal liability by inducement when a person directly induces another to commit a felony. Supreme Court jurisprudence has explained that inducement may involve a reward or promise, or words of command, although the specific facts and evidence must establish the required legal elements.
That distinction is important: an allegation that someone coached or influenced a witness does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. Investigators and prosecutors would still have to determine what actually happened and whether the evidence satisfies the elements of the offense.
Ombudsman Investigation Remains in Focus
The controversy is unfolding as investigations into alleged irregularities in flood-control projects continue.
The Palace said the Ombudsman, DOJ and other investigative bodies should determine which of Guteza’s conflicting accounts, if either, is supported by evidence. The Ombudsman has also indicated that Guteza’s recantation would not halt its broader investigation, citing other witnesses and evidence concerning the transactions under investigation.
News5 reported that current Blue Ribbon Committee Chairman Sen. Erwin Tulfo said the Guteza matter should be investigated, with the Ombudsman positioned to determine possible accountability.
Meanwhile, Lacson has called for stronger enforcement and tougher penalties against people who induce witnesses to commit perjury, arguing that fabricated testimony followed by recantation can undermine legitimate corruption investigations.
What Happens Next?
The immediate question is whether Guteza’s conflicting statements will result in a formal complaint and, eventually, a preliminary investigation.
For now, Marcoleta and Defensor have not been judicially found guilty of subornation of perjury based on the developments reported as of August 23, 2026.
The key issue for investigators will be determining whether there is sufficient independent evidence to establish that Guteza was deliberately induced to give false testimony—and who, if anyone, was responsible.
The case could therefore develop into another major legal and political test surrounding the Senate’s flood-control investigation.
Leave a Reply