MANILA, Philippines — Former Commission on Elections Commissioner Rowena Guanzon has launched a blistering attack on retired Marine Orly Guteza after he dramatically withdrew his earlier testimony linking former House Speaker Martin Romualdez to alleged cash deliveries connected to the country’s flood-control corruption controversy.
But Guteza’s reversal has opened an even bigger question: Which version of his story can investigators—and the public—believe?
Guanzon rejected Guteza’s latest claims after her name surfaced in his new sworn affidavit, challenging the credibility of a witness who has now given sharply conflicting accounts about one of the country’s most closely watched corruption investigations.
“Who would believe you?” Guanzon said in remarks reported by GMA News, questioning why she would have agreed to act as Guteza’s lawyer or become involved in a matter connected to his former employer, ex-lawmaker Zaldy Co.
Guanzon went further, saying the Office of the Ombudsman should consider whether Guteza could face a perjury case because of his contradictory sworn statements. That determination, however, belongs to investigators and prosecutors—not to Guanzon or any of the political figures involved.
Guteza Reverses His Explosive 2025 Testimony
The controversy stems from Guteza’s appearance before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on September 25, 2025.
At the time, Guteza identified himself as a former security aide of Zaldy Co and alleged that he was involved in delivering suitcases containing enormous amounts of cash. His testimony became part of the evidence examined in the widening investigation into alleged irregularities involving government flood-control projects.
Guteza originally claimed that bags containing what he described as “basura”—his term for cash—were delivered to several personalities, including Romualdez. GMA reported that the amount he had previously cited in connection with the alleged deliveries reached about P1.68 billion.
Now, nearly a year later, Guteza says that crucial portions of that story were false.
In an affidavit dated August 13, 2026 and reported by several news organizations this week, Guteza claimed that he had no personal knowledge of some of the supposed suitcase deliveries he previously described. He alleged that Senator Rodante Marcoleta and former congressman Mike Defensor pressured or persuaded him to make accusations against Romualdez.
Those allegations remain Guteza’s claims and require independent verification.
Guteza Claims an Affidavit Was Prepared for Him
According to Guteza’s new account, he met Marcoleta and Defensor at a Japanese restaurant in Pasay City on September 24, 2025—the day before his Senate appearance.
He alleged that an affidavit was being prepared for him and claimed that Marcoleta personally revised portions of the document before his testimony.
Guteza further alleged that he was encouraged to testify in exchange for financial benefits, including money and educational assistance for his children. According to the Inquirer, Guteza claimed that P150 million was mentioned during discussions, although his account and the circumstances surrounding that figure have not been independently established in court.
Guteza said he eventually felt that he had been “used” and expressed regret over his earlier testimony.
As the reports were initially published, news organizations said they had sought responses from Marcoleta and Defensor regarding Guteza’s accusations.
Why Guanzon’s Name Suddenly Entered the Story
Guteza’s new affidavit also brought Guanzon into the controversy.
According to his account, someone from Marcoleta’s office allegedly gave him the contact information of an “Atty. Guanzon” who could supposedly assist with revising or preparing an affidavit for a potential legal case.
But Guteza himself said he did not contact Guanzon, according to the Inquirer.
That distinction is significant: the publicly reported affidavit does not establish that Guanzon actually represented Guteza, spoke with him or participated in preparing his statement.
Guanzon reacted angrily after being mentioned, essentially arguing that the suggestion she would become involved with Guteza made no sense.
She also accused Guteza of changing allegiances and suggested that his credibility had collapsed because of his contradictory narratives.
Ombudsman: Guteza Is Not the Only Witness
Perhaps the most important development is that Guteza’s reversal may not automatically collapse the investigation against Romualdez.
The Office of the Ombudsman said on August 20 that it still has 28 other witnesses who allegedly possess direct and material information regarding transactions under investigation.
The Ombudsman described witness recantations in high-profile cases as something investigators encounter and stressed that the entire investigation does not depend on a single witness.
That means Guteza’s credibility may become a major legal issue, but investigators say the broader case involves evidence and testimony beyond his original affidavit.
Several former security personnel connected to Co have also previously come forward claiming knowledge of cash deliveries, although some witnesses have since retracted their own statements. Earlier this year, a group of former Marines publicly backed Guteza’s original allegations.
The competing testimonies now leave investigators with the difficult task of determining which statements can be corroborated by documents, financial records, communications, surveillance evidence or other independent proof.
Romualdez Uses Recantation in His Defense
Romualdez’s camp has moved quickly to use Guteza’s reversal in his defense.
ABS-CBN News reported that Romualdez included Guteza’s recantation in a supplemental counter-affidavit submitted in connection with the Ombudsman proceedings.
His lawyer, meanwhile, has questioned the evidence being assembled against the former Speaker, arguing that investigators lack sufficient forensic and documentary proof and pointing to inconsistencies among witnesses.
Those arguments remain part of Romualdez’s defense and have not ended the Ombudsman investigation.
Senators Question Guteza’s Credibility
Guteza’s reversal has also triggered strong reactions in the Senate.
Senator Erwin Tulfo, chairman of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, said the Ombudsman should determine whether Guteza committed perjury. Tulfo also suggested that Guteza may have recanted after feeling guilty about his previous statements.
Senator Panfilo Lacson, meanwhile, said Guteza’s reversal was not entirely surprising and raised questions about how the witness had originally been handled and allegedly coached.
These statements underline what could become the central legal problem surrounding Guteza: two conflicting sworn narratives cannot both be completely accurate.
Investigators will now have to establish whether his original testimony was false, whether his recantation is false, or whether portions of both accounts contain truth mixed with inaccurate or misleading claims.
Palace Wants Alleged Fabricators Investigated
Malacañang has also entered the debate.
Palace press officer Claire Castro said authorities should pursue anyone proven to have masterminded fabricated testimony. At the same time, she stressed that Guteza’s latest allegations themselves must be investigated rather than simply accepted as true.
The Palace said the Ombudsman, Department of Justice and other authorities should determine what actually happened.
That is an important distinction because a recantation does not automatically prove the new version of events.
The Bigger Problem: Credibility
Guteza’s reversal has transformed what was already a sprawling corruption controversy into a battle over witness credibility.
His original testimony helped fuel allegations that enormous amounts of cash connected to flood-control projects were moving through political networks.
His new affidavit now says important parts of that testimony were fabricated.
Yet other witnesses allegedly continue to support portions of the wider corruption allegations, while the Ombudsman insists its investigation does not rise or fall with Guteza alone.
For Guanzon, however, Guteza’s latest story has already crossed a line.
She wants authorities to examine whether a witness who has contradicted his own sworn testimony should face legal consequences.
And that may ultimately become one of the biggest stories emerging from the recantation.
Because investigators are no longer dealing simply with the question of who allegedly received the money.
They must now determine who told the truth, who changed the story—and why.
Leave a Reply