Former House Speaker Martin Romualdez said that his continued prosecution at the Office of the Ombudsman could no longer be “justified” given the recent change of narratives from the witnesses that were used to establish his involvement in flood control.

Romualdez expressed the sentiment through his supplemental counter-affidavit which was submitted to the anti-graft body Thursday, containing affidavits from 25 security aides of former congressman Zaldy Co.

The 25 individuals denied knowledge and any participation in deliveries of cash-filled suitcases to numerous public officials which were supposedly sourced from infrastructure kickbacks.

Such statements directly contradicted the affidavits of the 18 bodyguards that were presented to the public by Atty. Levito Baligod earlier in the year.

In the presence of “conflicting” testimonies, the Leyte representative said that it should be the side of the innocent that must be “upheld.”

“The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to shield the innocent from precipitate, spiteful, and burdensome prosecution, and to spare the respondent the trauma of trial where the evidence, tested at the outset, cannot sustain a prima facie case,” his affidavit read.

Romualdez noted that the 25 affidavits that were attached to his submission came from individuals that worked for Co and his family from a period of 2019 to 2026.

He asserted that it would be far-fetched to assume that the security aides never came across such an anomalous scheme.

“It would have been incredible, if not outright impossible, for all of the 25 Security Aides to have remained unaware of such an elaborate scheme of deliveries that supposedly occurred on several occasions and fell squarely within their scope of work,” the solon stated.

Equipoise rule

With the case having two “evenly balanced” pieces of evidence, Romualdez explained that his lawyers had informed him that the “equipoise rule” should be applied in accordance with the precedent that was set in the Supreme Court case of De Vera y Ante vs People.

The said legal principle mandates that criminal conviction must be drawn from the strength of the evidence that was presented by the prosecution, noting that such information should overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence afforded to a particular accused.

“This rule states that when evidence is consistent with a finding of innocence but also compatible with a finding of guilt, then the evidence is at equipoise and does not fulfill the test of moral certainty sufficient to support conviction,” the high court said.

It was further stated that such burden on the prosecution was “not met” when justices judging the case were able to draw different inferences from the evidence that was laid out.

Baligod recruited aides

Aside from outright denying the claims of deliveries, Romualdez argued that the affidavits of the 25 security aides established that it was Baligod that was responsible for organizing and providing a group with a pre-determined narrative.

The lawmaker said that the information explained why the 18 security aides that were accompanied by the lawyer had inconsistent stories, particularly when it came to the supposed recipients of ‘maletas.’

“The ever-changing story in the account and/or recollection of the 18 Security Aides…are no longer unexplained inconsistencies. The Affidavits of Denial and Non-Participation supply a concrete explanation for them,” he said.

“The narrative was allegedly being organized, expanded, and presented to others for adoption, including to persons who had no personal knowledge whatsoever of the supposed deliveries,” he added.

Romualdez further mentioned that the Affidavits of Denial and Non-Participation that were provided to their office proved that the allegations against him were part of an “extortionary scheme.”

On Wednesday, 19 August, Orly Guteza became the most recent bodyguard of Co that recanted his statement which implicated Romualdez and several officials to the anomalous flood control scheme.

Guteza, who was the “star witness” of Senator Rodante Marcoleta in a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing last 2025, claimed that his testimony was coached and that he was promised financial compensation.

The former bodyguard also alleged that it was Marcoleta and former congressman Michael Defensor that had met him at a Japanese restaurant in Pasay City prior to his appearance before the committee.

Guteza claimed that the senator told him that he was “missing link” that could link Romualdez to the flood control scandal.