MARCOLETA DEFENDS GUTEZA AS A “VICTIM,” NOT A CULPRIT

Senate Deputy Minority Leader Rodante Marcoleta insisted on Wednesday, November 19, that Orly Guteza — the surprise witness who linked former House Speaker and Leyte 1st District Representative Martin Romualdez to the alleged irregular flood control projects — is a victim and should not be held liable for questions surrounding the alleged fake signature on the affidavit he submitted to the Senate.

During the interpellation on the judiciary’s budget, Marcoleta questioned whether it is reasonable to expect individuals having documents notarized to personally verify if the notary is indeed a legitimate notarial public.

“Si Guteza ay biktima po rito. Siya po ’yung nabiktima rito,” Marcoleta said.

He argued that instead of being charged with falsification and perjury, Guteza should be recognized for stepping forward to help the state uncover who is behind the deplorable events that happened in our country.

“Pero siya ngayon ang kakasuhan ng falsification, ng perjury. Ang tanging kasalanan n’ya ay lumabas lamang at nagpasya para tulungan ang estado hanapin kung sino ang utak ng makawalanghiyang nangyari sa ating bansa,” he added.

Guteza earlier claimed he personally delivered suitcases of cash to the residences of Romualdez and former Ako Bicol Partylist Representative Zaldy Co.

In October, the Manila Regional Trial Court discovered that the signature on Guteza’s affidavit did not belong to the lawyer named in the document. According to the office of Senate President Pro Tempore Ping Lacson, the Manila RTC’s executive judge recommended a preliminary investigation into Guteza and those who filed the affidavit for possible falsification.

Marcoleta also raised concerns that Guteza and his family are now in danger following his testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

The senator said he requested three sample signatures from the Manila RTC executive judge to compare documents and prove that Guteza did not falsify the signature. He further questioned whether the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in choosing which samples to provide.

The investigation into the alleged anomalies involving several officials in the flood control projects continues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *