The Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) has determined that the signature on the affidavit of “surprise witness” Orly Guteza was not that of the lawyer whose name appeared on the document, according to Senate President Pro Tempore Panfilo “Ping” Lacson.

Lacson, expected to return as chairman of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, clarified that while the notarization issue raises questions about Guteza’s credibility, his sworn statement before the Senate remains valid.

“There are already findings and a resolution from the executive judge of the Manila RTC. It has been proven that the signature or seal of the notary, Atty. Espera, on his sworn statement, is not genuine,” Lacson said in Filipino during a radio interview on Tuesday.

Guteza was introduced as a witness in the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on 25 September by Senator Rodante Marcoleta.

He claimed, with the help of former Anakalusugan party-list Rep. Mike Defensor, that he personally delivered suitcases of money to the residences of former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Zaldy Co and Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez — allegations both lawmakers have denied.

Atty. Petchie Rose Espera, whose name appeared as the notary on Guteza’s affidavit, earlier denied notarizing the document, calling the signature “falsified and unauthorized.”

According to Lacson’s office, the Manila RTC executive judge has recommended a preliminary investigation into Guteza and those responsible for presenting the affidavit, on suspicion of falsification.

Despite the RTC findings, Lacson said the Blue Ribbon Committee will continue to recognize Guteza’s sworn statement in its proceedings.

“It doesn’t take away the validity of his sworn statement before the Senate. Those are different… his sworn statement was also made separately before the Blue Ribbon Committee,” Lacson said.

He added that the committee will presume the truthfulness of Guteza’s sworn statement in drafting its report.

Lacson also announced that, if reelected as chairperson, the next Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on anomalous flood control projects will be held on 14 November, and a “very important witness” will be invited to expedite potential filings of cases. Guteza will also be subpoenaed through the offices of Marcoleta or Defensor.

“There are many questions that can be asked of him because, while his sworn statement before the Blue Ribbon Committee is valid, there are credibility issues regarding his admission or claim that he himself had his sworn statement notarized by Atty. Espera, which he brought to the Senate,” Lacson said.

Defensor earlier 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.