Investigators found the statements of eight former Marines to be “categorical and consistent” regarding alleged money deliveries to former House Speaker Martin Romualdez and former party-list Representative Zaldy Co, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) said on Thursday, July 2.

Assistant Ombudsman Jose Dominic “Mico” Clavano IV, however, stressed that it is ultimately up to the courts, not the Ombudsman, to determine the credibility of the statements.

“The investigators seem to find those narration of facts as it relates to the money being delivered to the former Speaker [Romualdez] and to Zaldy categorical and consistent as to those facts. But as for the rest, we will not focus on that. What we are focusing on and what seems to be categorical and consistent are those statements as it relates to the money being delivered to Zaldy and the former Speaker,” he said.

He said investigators evaluate the consistency of each affiant’s narration rather than making conclusions on credibility.

“[Using the word ‘credible’] is for the Courts to decide. For us naman, we are looking at the individual statements and we look at their consistency. Of course the investigators have been able to study, siguro, the body language, the demeanor of the affiants, and they are of the opinion that we can use it. So, sa amin lang, sana mapirmahan na. Sana magamit na namin sa kaso. (For us, we simply hope they get signed already so we can use them in the case),” he said.

Per Clavano, only eight affidavits contain first-hand accounts that investigators found useful to the case involving the former Speaker.

“Walo. Eight of 18, or 8 of 22 seem to be of help to us, especially when it relates to the case of the former Speaker. It’s just that since June 20, supposedly it’s on review by the lawyers, but until this day, actually they were supposed to sign it today and then they asked for another extension naman (Eight. Eight of 18, or eight of 22 seem to be of help to us, especially when it relates to the case of the former Speaker. It’s just that since June 20, the affidavits have supposedly been under review by the lawyers, but until today, they were actually supposed to sign them today, and then they asked for another extension),” he said.

“But these affidavits are quite straightforward. Hindi naman masyado mahaba so, [in] minutes the lawyers can go over it and see kung okay na ba, informative substance. Pero hanggang ngayon, hindi pa natin nakukuha. Simple bagay (These affidavits are quite straightforward. They are not very long, so in minutes the lawyers can go over them and determine whether the substance is informative enough. But until now, we still have not received them. It’s a simple matter),” he went on.

The OMB explained that investigators separated the original joint affidavit into individual affidavits because not all of the former Marines had personal knowledge of the alleged deliveries.

“The others don’t have a first-hand account of the actual delivery. Kaya namin splinit ‘yung mga affidavits, hindi lang isa, kasi alam namin talaga na ‘yung iba doon wala naman talagang personal knowledge doon sa actual delivery. Kaya ini-split namin ‘yung joint affidavit to individual affidavits so we can really assess per person kung ano talagang nakita nila (The others do not have a first-hand account of the actual delivery. That is why we split the affidavits instead of having just one because we knew some of them really did not have personal knowledge of the actual delivery. We split the joint affidavit into individual affidavits so we could truly assess what each person actually saw),” he said.

Clavano said individualized affidavits allow investigators to better assess each witness’s account.

“That makes the statements more credible, if I may, because it comes from the perspective of one person. Kasi mahirap naman paniwalaan na ‘yung buong 18 sama-sama sila, lahat ng ginagawa ng isa, ginagawa ng 18 or 21 (That makes the statements more credible, if I may, because each statement comes from the perspective of one person. It would be difficult to believe that all 18 always acted together, with whatever one did also being done by all 18 or 21),” he said.

However, Clavano underscored that the affidavits cannot yet be treated as evidence because they remain unsigned and are not under oath.

“It’s a mere scrap of paper right now kasi hindi pa siya pirmado. It’s not under oath. But they seem to be cooperative, willing to sign already, ‘yung mga affiants mismo. Pero syempre we also want the lawyer to review ‘yung kanilang mga statements para everything is onboard, and it’s a part of their rights to seek counsel (It’s a mere scrap of paper right now because it has not yet been signed. It’s not under oath. But the affiants themselves seem to be cooperative and willing to sign already. Of course, we also want the lawyer to review their statements so everything is onboard, and it is part of their right to seek counsel),”he said.