Former Speaker and Leyte 1st District Representative Martin Romualdez requested that the Office of the Ombudsman evaluate whether the evidence against him meets its evidentiary threshold prior to initiating formal charges.
In a 25-page Supplemental Counter-Affidavit Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam filed on Thursday, August 20, Romualdez argued that the anti-graft agency should not issue charges while leaving notable testimonial inconsistencies to be sorted out during trial court proceedings.
Submitted out of caution, the pleading asks the agency to review a record comprising 32 sworn statements. This dossier features three retractions, two supporting accounts, 25 fresh affidavits denying involvement, a prior deposition from Allan Colesio—an ex-aide to former Representative Zaldy Co—and the recanted testimony of former Marine Orly Guteza from a prior Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing.
Romualdez maintained that these combined submissions challenge the credibility and firsthand knowledge of key witnesses who linked him to alleged cash-filled suitcases tied to questionable flood control projects.
According to the former House leader, the Ombudsman must identify what admissible, credible, and preserved evidence remains following the series of recantations and denials. He contended that if the remaining record falls short of the internal standard, the complaints—which include potential plunder allegations—must be dropped.
The filing highlights that under Section 3, Rule V of the 2026 Ombudsman Rules of Procedure, this critical evaluation is required before any Information is filed in court.
“Faced with these statements that cast doubt on the truth of the allegations in the Complaints, this Honorable Office cannot have basis to satisfy the standard of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction required under Section 3, Rule V of the 2026 Ombudsman Rules of Procedure.”
The pleading stresses that this updated threshold raises the bar above the previous probable cause standard.
“The evidentiary standard of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction was deliberately designed to elevate, and not merely restate, the former standard of probable cause.”
“The former expressly requires this Honorable Office to already assess admissibility and credibility before an Information may issue, not to defer that assessment to trial.”
Under the updated provisions, prosecutors are mandated to evaluate the complete record—including the counter-affidavits—to confirm that all submitted proof is admissible, credible, and capable of being preserved to establish every element of the offense and identify those responsible.
“Admissibility and credibility are thus not concerns reserved for the trial court; they are integral to this Honorable Office’s own determination of whether a case should be filed at all.”
“This is not a matter that can be set aside for resolution at some future trial; it is a defect in the evidence as it stands today, and it is precisely the kind of defect that Section 3, Rule V was written to catch before an Information is ever filed.”
The defense noted that the modified record now includes alleged delivery associates denying involvement, former staff members denying awareness of cash transfers, and key witnesses withdrawing their initial allegations.
Furthermore, the pleading pointed out that no contractor has alleged paying money to Romualdez, no Department of Public Works and Highways official has accused him of requesting or accepting kickbacks, no specific project has been tied to a payment made to him, and no financial trace links unlawful proceeds to his assets.