Partial Files, Full Questions: Why the Ombudsman Wants the Original Cabral Evidence

The Office of the Ombudsman has clarified a critical point in the ongoing investigation surrounding the so-called “Cabral files”: what matters most is the original evidence, not circulating copies.

According to Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano, Batangas 1st District Rep. Leandro Leviste did not present the complete set of computer files allegedly belonging to the late DPWH undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral.

Instead, investigators were shown only limited portions of the supposed list—insufficient to verify authenticity, context, or evidentiary value.

Hindi sapat ang listahan kung walang pinanggalingan.
Ang tanong: saan galing, sino ang may hawak, at buo ba?

Clavano explained that for due process and forensic integrity, investigators must rely on original digital sources—specifically, the personal computer and storage devices under Cabral’s custody prior to her death.

That is why the Ombudsman has taken custody of Cabral’s personal CPU, now undergoing forensic examination in coordination with the Office of the Ombudsman, Department of Public Works and Highways, COA, and the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group.

Clavano stressed that copies, screenshots, Excel lists, or third-party versions—especially those circulating outside official custody—naturally lose evidentiary weight and are vulnerable to alteration or incomplete context.

Sa korte, hindi sapat ang “may nagsabi.”
Kailangan: may pinanggalingan, may buo, may patunay.

He further clarified that the presence of a fund insertion in documents does not automatically mean criminal liability. It only becomes criminal if proven to involve fraud, misuse of public funds, or non-existent (“ghost”) projects.

The Ombudsman also revealed that multiple individuals have claimed to possess copies of the alleged Cabral files—making it even more crucial to distinguish original evidence from secondary or tertiary reproductions.

Hindi minamadali ang katotohanan.
Hinahabol ito—hanggang dulo.