The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has stated that the allegations made by a group calling themselves the “18 ex-Marines” regarding the delivery of millions of pesos in cash to several public figures are not supported by sufficient evidence and cannot establish probable cause for criminal charges.
NBI findings presented to Senate
NBI Director Melvin Matibag presented the bureau’s findings before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee consultation meeting convened by the Gatchalian bloc on Monday, June 8, 2026. He said the investigation revealed significant weaknesses in the group’s joint affidavit, including reliance on hearsay, lack of documentary evidence, and indications of coordinated testimony.
The NBI probe stemmed from a joint affidavit submitted on February 23, 2026, by a group of former security personnel linked to fugitive former congressman Zaldy Co, represented by lawyer Levito Baligod. The affidavit contained allegations involving the delivery of large sums of cash to several personalities amid ongoing government investigations into allegedly anomalous flood control projects.
Misuse of 'Marines' label
One of the first issues examined by investigators was the group's repeated identification as “former Marines.” Matibag said the NBI reviewed military service records and found that the description did not accurately apply to all members of the group. Records from the Philippine Marine Corps showed that 12 of the 16 individuals with military backgrounds were dishonorably discharged, while others were former Army personnel, reservists, or civilians. “The invocation of Marine honor has no institutional basis in this group,” Matibag added.
Senator Erwin Tulfo, chairperson of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee of the Gatchalian bloc, proposed changing the name of the NBI investigative unit initially called “Task Force Marino,” saying continued use of the term could be unfair to the Philippine Marine Corps and the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Matibag said they are likely to rename it “Task Force Bodyguard” or “Task Force Bellboy.”
Weak evidence and hearsay
According to the NBI report, most of the allegations in the affidavit were not based on direct personal knowledge. Investigators found that only about 10 to 20 percent of the statements were derived from firsthand observations, while the majority were based on information allegedly relayed by other members of the group. “Personal experience is stronger evidence. If it was only heard from others, that is hearsay and has weak probative value,” Matibag said.
He cited examples where witnesses said they were told about a cash delivery by a colleague but did not personally see it or know the contents of the bag. “Some said they saw the bag but most only heard from other members,” he added.
Lack of documentary evidence
Matibag said investigators also found a lack of documentary or physical evidence supporting the allegations. They were unable to obtain any CCTV footage, receipts, cell phone records, bank documents, or authenticated photographs that could corroborate the claims of cash deliveries. “The absence of documentary evidence is not just a weakness but a direct failure to comply with the legal directive. We gave them sufficient time to submit corroborative statements or evidence,” said Matibag.
He noted that the contents of the bag were merely assumed based on weight, without actual verification. “In the report, 12 out of 18 did not see the contents of the suitcase and relied only on weight, code words like ‘trash,’ and statements from executive assistants. The cash itself was not proven by independent evidence,” he added.
Coordinated testimony
Another major finding involved the circumstances surrounding the preparation of the affidavit. According to the NBI, several witnesses admitted participating in group meetings and discussions before the affidavit was executed. Matibag said members of the group had been living together as early as November 2025, several months before the affidavit was submitted in February 2026.
“Johnny Buduan was approached by Atty. Baligod, not the other way around. Buduan recruited the others to join,” Matibag said. He added that some witnesses admitted receiving money, like an allowance, from Atty. Baligod.
The NBI identified three major concerns: weak evidence, misleading use of the “ex-Marines” label, and lack of independence among witnesses, which cannot constitute the filing of appropriate criminal charges.
Separate investigation into bribery allegations
Matibag also disclosed that the NBI is investigating separate allegations that certain members of the group were offered money to participate in the operation. He cited the case of Anselmo Taberdo, whose partner reportedly approached NBI agents and alleged that Taberdo had been offered P5 million to join the effort. The partner initially claimed that only P700,000 had been released, but during a follow-up interview on May 6, the figure was revised to P350,000. The NBI has since sought to validate the claims and has issued subpoenas to former congressman Mike Defensor and Taberdo as part of the investigation.
