As far as the chairperson of the House Committee on Justice is concerned, the affidavit and utterances of contractor couple Curlee and Sarah Discaya are enough evidence to indict them for plunder.

Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville “Jinky Bitrics” Luistro was referring to Curlee's recent testimonies during the House Infrastructure Committee (infra comm) hearing and the couple’s affidavit or sworn statement submitted to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

The document, signed by the Discayas, identified lawmakers and Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials allegedly involved in kickbacks.

Luistro, a lawyer, reminded the couple that plunder is a non-bailable offense punishable by life imprisonment.

“Mr. Discaya, significantly under the law, if it is P50 million and below, the case is violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. But if the case is more than P50 million, it constitutes violation of Anti-Plunder Law,” Luistro said during the infra comm hearing last Tuesday.

“I want you to realize violation of Anti-Plunder Law is punishable by life imprisonment and it is a no bail offense, which means if information will be filed [before] the Sandiganbayan against you and your other co-accused, kayo pong mag-asawa and the rest of the co-accused ay makukulong at mapapahiwalay sa inyong mga anak (you two and the rest of the co-accused will be imprisoned and be separated from your children). Do you realize that?” she asked Curlee.

Curlee initially insisted that all their projects were secured through public bidding. But Luistro said that by narrating how funds allegedly flowed through anomalous projects, Curlee effectively confessed to plunder.

"Do you understand as well that in this affidavit, Mr. Discaya, kayo po’y umamin na? (You already made an admission?) You already made an admission about the commission of the case of plunder with your affidavit,” she said.

Curlee responded by claiming they were coerced. “Your Honor, ano po ito, pinilit lang po kami, your honor. Pinilit lang po (Your honor, this was, we were just coerced, your honor. We were just coerced).”

“That is for you to prove,” Luistro shot back.

“But in as far as this committee is concerned, including the members, when we go over your sinumpaang salaysay (sworn statement), to me it appears you are admitting already to the case of plunder. And the worst thing, Mr. Discaya, among the lawmakers and the DPWH officials whom you identified, all of them denied. Do you understand the implication of this?” she added.

Asked why he signed the affidavit despite the obvious consequences, Curlee said: “Your honor, mas natatakot kami sa buhay namin ngayon dahil kinukuyog na kami ng taumbayan. Kaya po nag-execute kami ng affidavit na ito dahil 120 million Filipinos ang parang gusto kaming patayin…kaya po napilitan po akong gawin ito.”

(We are more afraid for our lives now because the people are ganging up on us. That’s why we executed this affidavit, because it feels like 120 million Filipinos want to kill us… so I was forced to do this.)

Luistro also rejected Curlee's insinuation that he could unilaterally position himself as a state witness. “Becoming a state witness is a decision that comes from the court and not from you. And there are requirements that we have to consider.

She explained that the rules of court require absolute necessity of testimony, corroboration, lack of other evidence, absence of previous conviction and that the witness must not be the "most guilty".

“And if you are not admitted as state witness, definitely then you will be one of the co-accused. And with your admission that you made already in the Senate and before this committee, I think the offense of plunder is already established,” she added.