THE evidence presented before the House Committee on Justice is strong enough to support a possible conviction in a plunder case against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte.

“Tama po yan … she may because sa lakas ng ebidensya,” Atty. Lorna Kapunan said during the Saturday News Forum at Dapo Restaurant in Quezon City when asked if the evidence presented during the hearings of the Justice panel is enough to convict her of plunder.

The House Justice Committee earlier examined Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) records that reportedly showed more than 600 covered and suspicious transactions linked to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio, amounting to about P6.7 billion, with lawmakers also cross-checking selected entries from former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV’s affidavit against AMLC records.

Kapunan pointed specifically to the portion of the House hearing where Trillanes’ annexed bank records were tested through randomly selected accounts and compared with the AMLC report.

“Maalala natin ‘nung pinakita, ‘nung ginawang witness ng House Committee on Justice si Senator Trillanes, under the questioning of Rep. Leila de Lima, random accounts lang, random accounts sa kinumpara, yung mga in-annex ni Senator Trillanes sa affidavit niya,” Kapunan recounted.

“Nag-random choosing lang ang Congresswoman Leila ng 19 accounts,” Kapunan added.

She emphasized that all 19 accounts selected for comparison matched the AMLC figures, down to the exact amounts.

“Yung 19 accounts po na ‘yan, na naka-annex sa Senator Trillanes’ complaint sa Ombudsman, to the last centavo, matching na matching ‘yung figures sa affidavit niya sa report ng AMLC,” Kapunan noted.

For Kapunan, the point was not merely that Trillanes had been vindicated politically, but that official records had confirmed the substance of what he had long been alleging.

“So, sabi nila na-vindicate, hindi po. Na-vindicate daw si Senator Trillanes. I think the right word is na-confirm,” Kapunan clarified.

“Na-confirm ‘yung matagal na niyang sinasabi na totoo,” Kapunan added.

Kapunan also explained that a possible Ombudsman plunder case can proceed side by side with the impeachment process, including any eventual trial in the Senate.

“Yes po. Pwedeng isabay. Hindi kasi ‘yung impeachment case. Pwedeng isabay lahat. Pwedeng magsabay ng criminal case,” Kapunan explained.

She said the same principle applies to other legal remedies arising from the evidence already discussed before the House panel, including the disallowance of confidential funds by the Commission on Audit.

“Pwede isabay yung, kasi maalala natin pag nanood tayo, may disallowance ang COA ng kanyang ginamit daw for confidential funds,” Kapunan pointed out.

“Nag-disallow ang COA dyan. Nag-appeal sila. Deny na rin ‘yung disallowance. So, napakalaki ng amount na ‘yan,” Kapunan added.

Kapunan noted that the recovery of disallowed funds would not happen through the impeachment case itself, but through separate civil or forfeiture proceedings.

“Pwedeng ipabalik ‘yan, not in the impeachment case,” Kapunan stressed.

“Pwedeng ipabalik ‘yung disallowed na funds na ginamit sa DepEd (Department of Education) in a civil case or in a forfeiture case,” Kapunan added.