‘Maleta boys’ lawyer readying affidavit vs recantersThe lawyer representing the remaining members of the 'maleta boys' group stated plans to prepare an affidavit aimed at refuting the statements made by some members of the group who later retracted their confessions. These retractions were claimed to be due to coercion during initial interrogations. The lawyer emphasized the need to address these allegations and strengthen the case against the recanters.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the situation as a legal challenge to coerced confessions, which aligns with left-leaning perspectives that emphasize due process and protection against undue influence. The focus on the recantation as a result of duress suggests a critique of potential prosecutorial overreach, a傾
Why factuality (75): The article reports on the lawyer preparing an affidavit to counter the recantations of some 'maleta boys' members. It provides context about the legal proceedings and mentions the claim of duress. Since no primary source is available, factuality is judged based on consistency with the cross-source
Why objectivity (80): The article presents information in a neutral tone, focusing on the legal actions and statements without apparent bias. It avoids emotional language and sticks to reporting the facts as presented by the lawyer.
Lawyer of remaining ‘maleta boys’ readying affidavit vs recantersThe lawyer representing the remaining members of the so-called 'maleta boys' announced plans to file an affidavit challenging the recantations made by some members of the group. These individuals had previously stated they were pressured into making their initial statements to prosecutors. Lawyer Levito Baligod visited the Office of the Ombudsman to address these concerns, indicating a potential legal challenge against the credibility of the recantations.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on legal actions taken by a lawyer regarding recantations made by individuals involved in a case. It does not exhibit clear bias toward either side, presenting the situation factually without apparent editorializing or loaded language.
Why factuality (75): This article is nearly identical in content to the first, providing the same information about the lawyer preparing an affidavit against recanters. Factuality remains consistent with the cross-source consensus, as both articles align in their reporting.
Why objectivity (80): The tone remains neutral and objective, presenting the same information without introducing personal opinion or emotional language. It maintains a balanced approach to the legal developments described.
‘Maleta boys’ counsel to submit evidence vs recantersOn March 12, 2026, sixteen of eighteen alleged soldiers linked to the 'Maleta boys' appeared before the National Bureau of Investigation in response to a subpoena. Their lawyer, Levito Baligod, stated that they plan to present evidence, including audio recordings and text message screenshots, to the Office of the Ombudsman to argue that four individuals who recanted their earlier statements were bribed. Baligod acknowledged that some of the evidence, particularly the audio recordings, might be inadmissible under the Anti-Wiretapping Law. He claimed the recanters received up to P10 million each. The 'Maleta boys,' previously identified as former bodyguards of former Ako Bicol party-list representative Zaldy Co, had accused Co, former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of receiving cash deliveries. However, four of the eighteen later retracted their claims. The Ombudsman requested individual affidavits from each person, but only eight of the eighteen complied, including three of the four who recanted. Baligod suggested that the recantations resulted from both bribery and threats and indicated that the identities of those involved in the alleged bribery, b
Bias read (Center): The article presents the claims made by the defense attorney of the 'Maleta boys' without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from Baligod and references the Ombudsman’s requests for individual affidavits, indicating a balanced approach to presenting the situation.
Why factuality (75): The article reports on the legal actions involving the 'Maleta boys' and their lawyer, Levi Baligod. It mentions the submission of evidence such as audio recordings and text message screenshots, while acknowledging that some evidence may be inadmissible under Republic Act 4200. The article cites the
Why objectivity (65): The tone leans slightly towards supporting the 'Maleta boys' by highlighting their legal defense and the potential bribery accusations against officials. The article uses terms like 'recanters' and emphasizes the financial allegations, which may introduce bias. While not overtly partisan, the framin
PH
