Defensor: Guteza had no motive to 'falsify' affidavit on cash deliveries

Former Rep. Mike Defensor believes Orly Guteza has no motive to fabricate his affidavit despite questions surrounding the legitimacy of its notarization.

Guteza, who previously testified before the Senate that he delivered cash-filled suitcases to Ako Bicol Rep. Elizaldy Co and House Speaker Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez. 

Defensor said the core of Guteza’s claims remained consistent. He then emphasized that Guteza’s statements under oath before senators are already admissible.

“It’s immaterial for me, since he made a sworn statement in the Senate. He made a statement under oath, which carries also the weight of evidence in a legal proceeding. Whether may mali yung notary, he signed it,” he said. 

“He presented to the Senate, and then he verbalized what he said. That's enough. That's evidence,” he added. 

Defensor maintained that the affidavit was notarized “in good faith” and reflected the testimony Guteza delivered during a Senate inquiry.

However, the document became the subject of controversy after Atty. Petchie Rose Espera, whose name appeared as the notary public, denied any involvement. In a statement, Rosas-

Espera was quoted as saying, “I categorically deny notarizing, signing, or participating in the preparation of the said document. The signature and notarial details attributed to me are falsified and unauthorized.”

Doubt cast about the credibility of Guteza’s claims following the lawyer’s denial.

Defensor, however, stood by Guteza. 

“Walang (no) red flags eh. And you know what he told me, even if they check, you know, it's easy to check if he's a security detail of a political party list, if he's part of this, makikita mo talaga (you can really see it),” he said. 

“When he was talking, the same manner when he spoke in the Senate, parehong pareho… ‘yung sinasabi nila na it wasn't notarized, he did it in good faith. Imbistiganin niyo yung notary. If there's something wrong with that, then we really have to clarify,” he added. 

It was Defensor who introduced Guteza to Sen. Rodante Marcoleta before he was presented at the Senate’s hearing last Thursday.

More to come forward

Defensor said Guteza had approached him with a typewritten affidavit outlining alleged cash deliveries to several public officials.

According to Defensor, Guteza has declined formal witness protection, instead choosing to remain under the care of fellow Marines. 

“He was with his fellow Marine. Some of them, the officials who… parang gusto nila (seem want) to protect and to ensure the safety of Sgt. Guteza,” he said.

Defensor claimed that other individuals may also come forward. 

“Sergeant Guteza was in front of me, you know, while he was discussing about [the statement]…someone would call him and then they would say—lalabas ako, pasta suportahan niyo ako. Marines tayo,” he revealed.

“And then today, you know, I get messages that a lot of those with them, and if you recall, in the Senate hearing, he was talking about 90 people, ex-Marines, and some of them, mga active police. May mga sinasabi na that they want to come out and also say and tell what they know and what they have observed,” Defensor added. 

Guteza earlier testified that he was part of a 90-man security and operations group allegedly tasked with delivering kickback money, which he referred to as “basura”, to various locations, including the residences of Co and Romualdez.

In his testimony, Guteza stated that these deliveries occurred up to three times a week, starting in December 2024.

In a statement released Thursday, House Speaker Martin Romualdez denied the allegations, pointing out that the property mentioned by Guteza has been under renovation since January 2024 and was unoccupied at the time.

“The so-called testimony of Sen. Marcoleta’s witness is an outright and complete fabrication—nothing more than a desperate attempt to link me to supposed kickbacks where none exist. Pilit na pilit (It is too forced),”  he said.

Romualdez called the testimony “categorically false,” citing the Latin legal principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus — or "false in one thing, false in everything.”

Defensor acknowledged Romualdez’s rebuttal but said the focus should be on corroborating Guteza’s claims with other security personnel who allegedly participated in the operations.