WATCH: Senate Witness Guteza In Marine Custody – Defensor

Where in the world is Orly Guteza?

According to former lawmaker Mike Defensor, the “surprise witness” who testified during the Senate Blue Ribbon committee hearing is currently under the protection of the Philippine Marines.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Marine Corps have yet to comment on Defensor’s statement.

Defensor, who introduced Guteza to Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, told “Storycon” on One News on Wednesday, Oct. 29, that the former Marine is ready to appear if summoned by the Senate, Department of Justice (DOJ) or the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

“Sergeant Guteza – I’m saying this publicly – is under the Philippine Marines. He’s with them. No one can talk to him, and no one is allowed to approach him. But any time there is an official summons, it can be sent to the Marine commandant,” Defensor said.

He clarified the reported non-appearance of Guteza at the NBI, saying there was an initial discussion for him to be placed under the Witness Protection Program.

But Guteza later decided not to push through with that and opted to seek the protection of the Marines, the former lawmaker said.

“After that hearing, he went to the Philippine Marines compound,” Defensor claimed. “The last message relayed to us – through our contact, since I don’t talk to him directly – was that if there’s an official summons from the NBI, the DOJ or the Senate committee, he will go and he will cooperate.”

Defensor maintained that Guteza was telling the truth when he testified on the alleged deliveries of suitcases containing millions to the residences of resigned congressman Zaldy Co and former speaker Martin Romualdez.

‘Act accordingly’

The DOJ has committed to act accordingly on the recommendation of a Manila court to investigate the possible falsification charges against Guteza on his sworn statement with a forged notarization.

Prosecutor General Richard Anthony Fadullon said they have yet to receive a copy of the order of Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 18 Executive Judge Carolina Icasiano-Sison, who referred the case to the DOJ for further investigation.

The court found that the signature of lawyer Petchie Rose Espera, which was affixed to the sworn statement of Guteza, is fake, affirming the lawyer’s claims that she did not notarize the document.

Not binding

Fadullon said the court’s finding that the notarization is falsified only means that “it cannot be binding” and cannot be used in proceedings.

However, the court did not rule on whether the contents of the sworn statement are false.

“As far as Guteza is concerned, what he was saying will not change, whether it was notarized or not. The truthfulness or veracity is different from the fact that it’s binding as far as he’s concerned and insofar as third persons are concerned,” he noted.

Fadullon added that when Guteza testified before the Blue Ribbon committee, he also swore an oath there and his testimony is still “something that can be used or it can be useful.”

“I think the case that’s filed before the RTC was for the benefit of the notary just to note that I did not notarize that document. But it does not say that just because I did not notarize, it means that the things that I stated there are lies,” he said.

Marcoleta liable?

Meanwhile, DOJ spokesman Polo Martinez said the Manila court’s ruling on the notary falsification only pertains to Guteza.

Senator Marcoleta, who presented Guteza as a surprise witness to the Senate Blue Ribbon committee, is not affected. Martinez explained that only parties involved can be affected by the ruling.

Guteza, who served as a security consultant of resigned congressman Co, testified before the Blue Ribbon committee that he delivered suitcases of cash to the homes of Co and Romualdez. His sworn statement was supposedly notarized by Espera, who later denied doing so.

The Manila court cited the results of a forensic analysis done by the NBI, which showed that the signature in Guteza’s sworn statement, compared with Espera’s signature, “were not written by one and the same person.”

Senate invitation

The NBI said it will wait for an invitation from the Blue Ribbon committee to present its findings on the alleged forgery of Guteza’s notarized statement.

The Manila court earlier ordered the NBI to examine the document, the findings of which would be released “maybe when the right time comes,” according to NBI officer in charge Angelito Magno.

Magno said the NBI has the capability to examine a questionable document, such as Guteza’s affidavit, through the Questioned Documents Division under its Forensic and Scientific Research Service.

“If it’s a genuine forgery, he will be charged with a case of falsification or public document because this was presented in a Senate hearing,” Magno said Tuesday, Oct. 28, over radio dzMM.

Vindication?

According to House public accounts panel chair and Bicol Saro party-list Rep. Terry Ridon, the revelation of the forged statement was a “decisive vindication of fact over fiction.”

“This was no clerical mistake – it was a premeditated attempt to subvert the truth and derail a Senate inquiry,” he said.

“When fabricated evidence is used to manipulate proceedings, it is not just an attack on individuals but on Congress itself,” Ridon added.

The lawmaker urged the DOJ to “act decisively so that political forgery never again finds refuge in impunity.” – With Daphne Galvez, EJ Macababbad, Michael Punongbayan, Delon Porcalla, Jose Rodel Clapano