MANILA, Philippines — Detained Sen. Rodante Marcoleta has pushed back against explosive allegations made by retired Marine MSgt. Orly Guteza, insisting that it was “improbable” for him and former congressman Mike Defensor to have conspired with the witness to fabricate testimony linking former House Speaker Martin Romualdez to alleged cash deliveries connected to the flood control controversy.
In a statement released Friday, Marcoleta questioned the circumstances surrounding Guteza’s recent recantation, suggesting that the former Marine may have been pressured into signing his new affidavit.
According to Marcoleta, it was more believable that threats against Guteza’s wife and children may have influenced him to issue what the senator described as an “outrageous statement.”
The senator also rejected Guteza’s claim that he and Defensor had helped create a detailed story about the alleged transport of cash-filled suitcases during a meeting at a restaurant just hours before Guteza appeared before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in September 2025.
Marcoleta argued that it was unlikely that he and Defensor could have invented such an elaborate account within such a short period — and equally implausible that he could have quickly learned Guteza’s story, revised his affidavit and instructed him before the Senate hearing.
The Recantation That Reignited the Controversy
The controversy intensified after Guteza resurfaced earlier this month and withdrew key allegations he had previously made before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.
In his recantation, Guteza alleged that Marcoleta and Defensor had coached him into implicating Romualdez in the alleged delivery of money-filled suitcases. He also claimed he had no personal knowledge of some of the alleged transactions he previously described.
Guteza’s allegations were widely reported by several Philippine news organizations, including Philstar.com and News5, which also covered his claims that he was pressured or persuaded to deliver the earlier testimony. The allegations, however, remain allegations and have yet to be conclusively established by a court or investigating body.
Marcoleta, for his part, maintained that Guteza’s original Senate testimony contained more detail than his later recantation, which he characterized as a general denial lacking evidentiary value.
Could the Recantation Lead to New Cases?
The dramatic reversal has also raised questions about possible legal consequences.
Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson has said that if evidence establishes that a person induced another to commit perjury, those allegedly involved could potentially face complaints for subornation of perjury or be treated as principals under provisions of the Revised Penal Code, depending on the facts and evidence established by investigators and the courts.
Lacson specifically said Marcoleta and Defensor could face complaints over the alleged coaching of Guteza, while emphasizing the potential legal consequences of inducing false testimony.
But the legal questions surrounding Guteza’s conflicting statements are far from settled.
Malacañang has also called for authorities to determine which version of Guteza’s story is truthful and whether anyone manipulated or pressured him. The Palace said investigating agencies should establish the facts and hold accountable whoever may be responsible for any proven fabrication or wrongdoing.
Ombudsman Says Case Does Not Rest on One Witness
Meanwhile, the Office of the Ombudsman has downplayed the impact of Guteza’s recantation on its broader investigation, saying it has other witnesses who can provide information related to the allegations involving Romualdez.
The anti-graft body said Guteza’s reversal does not automatically end the investigation, underscoring that the case involves evidence and testimony beyond a single witness.
That leaves investigators facing a central question: Was Guteza’s original testimony false, was his recantation made under pressure, or is the truth somewhere within evidence that has yet to be fully tested?
For now, Marcoleta is standing by his denial, Guteza is standing by his recantation, and investigators are left to determine which claims can be supported by independent evidence.
As the flood control controversy continues to unfold, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: the battle is no longer only about the alleged money trail — it is also about who influenced the witness and which version of the story can ultimately withstand legal scrutiny.
Leave a Reply