PASAY CITY — The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on Monday cast doubt on the credibility of the individuals who claimed to be former Marines and surfaced in connection with the Senate’s flood control probe.

Appearing before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee chaired by Sen. Erwin Tulfo, NBI Director Atty. Melvin Matibag presented the bureau’s "Task Force Marino" report but referred to the group as "bellboys" rather than Marines due to credibility issues.

“The evidence is not enough basis to file a case. In the report, it was stated that even hearsay can be used in preliminary investigation but there should be a substantial basis that is absent in this case,” he said, calling the men’s allegations “uncorroborated.”

'Some are Marines, some are not'

Matibag also walked back the label of “18 former Marines,” noting it was used in the media to strengthen their credibility.

“The group included the popular narrative of Marine Honor Code. This does not match the actual record. In fact, we saw that the AFP and the Marines issued a statement that they are not called 18 Marines. If they are not honorably discharged, they will not be considered to be in the Marine Corps,” he said.

According to the NBI, only three members are honorably retired Marines, while 12 were dishonorably discharged. Others are Army reservists or civilians. Some served as little as 10 months, with records of being absent without official leave, and several had already left military service before becoming employees of former congressman Elizaldy “Zaldy” Co.

“The invocation of Marine Honor has no institutional basis in this group,” Matibag said.

Label carries no weight

Matibag stressed that being called an “ex-Marine” does not strengthen testimony in the absence of evidence.

“Courts rely on evidence, not on labels. The Supreme Court stated that probative value is based on personal knowledge, not on title or label,” he said.

He said credible testimony must come from direct personal experience.

“For example, if the witness actually saw and experienced the cash delivery, the statement is stronger. In the report, there are some clients who said that they saw the cash, but usually it is just based on someone else's story. The logistics of the operation is corroborated, but the core allegation that the cash is inside the suitcase is often just hearsay.”

Some members of the group did not personally know the entire story, yet their statements were included as a “collective narrative,” which does not convert hearsay into personal knowledge, he said.

Baligod’s conduct

Matibag also criticized the group’s legal counsel, Atty. Levi Baligod, saying he approached Johnny Buduan — one of the alleged former Marines — rather than the other way around.

“Please take note that they did not approach Atty. Baligod, but Atty. Baligod approached Buduan,” Matibag said.

He also questioned claims that Baligod provided allowances to the group and suggested they stay at his residence, calling it a potential violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Coordinated testimony weakens case

According to Matibag, testimony that appears coordinated reduces its legal value. Identical wording among multiple witnesses suggests coaching or collusion.

“When multiple witnesses function like synchronized recorders, the testimony fails the test of personal knowledge and perception. Because the court cannot determine where the real observation ends and the script begins. The probative value of the synchronized statements are discarded entirely,” he said.

He noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that “perfect symmetry” in testimony raises suspicion of rehearsed or concocted statements.