NAKOMPROMISO na umano ang unang affidavit ni Orly Guteza bago pa man niya ito binawi — itinanggi ito ng sinasabing notaryo ng dokumento na siya ang lumagda rito, itinuring ito ng isang hukuman sa Maynila bilang isang pinaghihinalaang palsipikadong dokumento, at ang mga taong itinuro ni Guteza bilang posibleng magpapatibay sa kanyang salaysay ay tumanggi sa umano’y cash deliveries.

Dahil dito, ayon sa kampo ni dating Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, hindi maaaring ipagpalagay ng Office of the Ombudsman na totoo ang unang bersyon ni Guteza at ituring na ang kanyang pagbawi lamang ng salaysay ang siyang pinagtatalunang pahayag.

Sa Supplemental Counter-Affidavit na inihain noong Agosto 20, 2026, nakasaad na ang unang salaysay ni Guteza ay hindi kailanman sumailalim sa independiyenteng pagsusuri sa hukuman.

Sa pahina 17, sinabi ni Romualdez: “Even during the proceedings for the issuance of a Precautionary Hold Departure Order before the Sandiganbayan, complainant [Special Panel of Investigators (SPI)] did not present Guteza for personal examination, re-swearing, or independent verification.”

Direktang tinukoy sa pahina 18 ang mahalagang pagkakaibang ito: “More fundamentally, the _Guteza Recantation Salaysay_ does not introduce doubt into an otherwise stable and independently corroborated account.”

Sa konteksto ng suplemento, iginiit na ang naunang salaysay ay hindi naman talaga matatag o independiyenteng napatunayan mula pa sa simula.

Inisa-isa rin ni Romualdez ang mga depekto ng unang salaysay sa parehong pahina: “As already exhaustively demonstrated in my Counter-Affidavit, the _Original Guteza Salaysay_ was already afflicted with substantial and independent defects before Guteza ever recanted it: the supposed notary expressly denied under oath having notarized or signed it; the document was subsequently treated by the Executive Judge of Branch 18 of the RTC of Manila as a falsified document; and M. Bunagan and Colesio—persons Guteza himself identified as capable of corroborating his narrative—executed sworn statements contradicting him and denying the supposed deliveries.”

Noong 2025, pinawalang-sala ng executive judge ng Regional Trial Court ng Maynila ang naturang notaryo matapos matuklasan ng pagsusuri ng National Bureau of Investigation na ang kuwestiyonableng lagda at ang kanyang karaniwang lagda ay hindi isinulat ng iisang tao. Inirekomenda rin ng hukuman ang karagdagang imbestigasyon sa usapin.

Inilahad din sa supplemental filing ang mga bagong alegasyon ni Guteza hinggil sa paghahanda ng kanyang unang salaysay.

Nakasaad sa pahina 9: “Guteza narrates that the supposed delivery narrative was raised during a meeting with former Congressman Mike Defensor, and that, despite his lack of personal knowledge of the matters being proposed, he was repeatedly pressed to adopt them. He further states that Defensor’s son-in-law thereafter reduced the proposed narrative into an affidavit on a laptop, and that sitting Senator Rodante Marcoleta subsequently reviewed and revised the document. According to Guteza, it was in the course of that process that Sen. Marcoleta described his proposed account as the ‘missing link’ that would connect me to the alleged deliveries.”

Binigyang-diin ng supplemental filing ang kahalagahan ng mga naturang pahayag.

Nakasaad sa pahina 18: “These details do not compel automatic acceptance of every accusation Guteza now makes. They do, however, render his subsequent account capable of examination and testing, and prevent his former account from rationally being treated as a stable and independent evidentiary foundation without confronting the circumstances he now describes.”

Tahasan namang sinabi sa pahina 23: “The Honorable Office need not accept his present account by fiat; neither, however, can his earlier, already compromised version continue to support a reasonable certainty of conviction without confronting his categorical repudiation and the circumstances he now describes.”