BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
EFFECT OF DEFECTIVE NOTARIZATION ON THE GUTEZA AFFIDAVIT
Last September 24, 2025, a whistleblower by the name of Orly Regala Guteza testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in relation to the ongoing investigation on the flood control mess. Guteza, a member of the Philippine Marines, alleged in his Affidavit and testified before the said Committee that he delivered “maletas” of cash to Speaker Martin Romualdez and Congressman Zaldy Co. However, the lawyer who supposedly notarized the document, Atty. Petchie Rose Espera, claimed that she did not notarize the said document and the use of her name as the one who notarized the said document was “spurious.”
But what is the effect of a defective notarization? Will it make the allegations in the Guteza Affidavit ipso facto false? No. A defective notarization will just strip the document of its public character and will reduce it to a private document. (Rowena Patenia-Kinatac-an, et al. vs. Enriqueta Patenia-Decena, et al., G.R. No. 238325, June 15, 2020) In the case of Rufino B. Requina, Sr. vs. Eleuteria B. Erasmo, G.R. No. 221049 (December 7, 2022), citing the earlier case of Rama vs. Papa, G.R. No. 142309 (January 30, 2009), the Supreme Court held that a defect in the notarization of a deed of sale will not ipso facto render it void. However, it eliminates the presumptions that are carried by notarized public documents and subject the deed of sale to a different level of scrutiny than that relied on by the Court of Appeals. Still in Rufino B. Requina, Sr. vs. Eleuteria B. Erasmo, supra, citing the case of Tigno vs. Spouses Aquino, G.R. No. 129416, November 25, 2004, the Supreme Court held that where the public document in question has been notarized by a judge who had no authority to do so, the Court dispensed with the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to duly notarized documents, and instead applied preponderance of evidence as the measure to test the validity of that document. Finally, in Rufino B. Requina, Sr. vs. Eleuteria B. Erasmo, supra, citing the case of De Joya vs. Madlangbayan, G.R. 228999, April 28, 2021, the Court held that irregular notarization reduces evidentiary value of the document to a private document which requires proof of its due execution and authenticity to be admissible as evidence.
Hence, the allegations in the Affidavit of Guteza may not necessarily be false just because the Affidavit can be considered as unnotarized. Besides, Guteza already testified under oath before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. Nonetheless, the controversy surrounding the notarization casts doubt on the credibility of Guteza’s testimony and the motive of those who are behind him which will be considered in the appreciation of the weight of his testimony. The controversy surrounding the notarization may also warrant an investigation by the Commission on Bar Discipline by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines if there is a violation of the 2004 Notarial Rules.