Prosecutor Lorna Kapunan Defends 'Scam' Remark in Confidential Funds Hearing
Kapunan Defends Use of the Word "Scam"
Lawyer Lorna Kapunan, serving as counsel for the prosecution, defended her use of the word "scam" during proceedings involving the alleged use of confidential funds by the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education (DepEd).
According to Kapunan, the alleged victims in the case are "the Filipino people."
The remarks were made during legal arguments before the tribunal.
Defense Moves to Strike the Statement
Defense lawyers objected to Kapunan's characterization and requested that the word "scam" be stricken from the official record.
The defense argued that such language was improper and prejudicial within the context of the proceedings.
The objection became one of the notable exchanges during the hearing.
Prosecution's Position
Kapunan maintained that, in her view as counsel for the prosecution, the allegations concerning confidential funds justify her description of the issue.
Her remarks reflect the prosecution's legal arguments and allegations presented during the proceedings.
Those allegations remain contested by the defense.
Defense Continues to Dispute Allegations
The defense has consistently denied allegations related to the confidential funds and continues to challenge both the factual and legal claims presented by the prosecution.
As the proceedings continue, both sides are expected to present additional arguments and evidence supporting their respective positions.
No final determination has been made regarding the allegations discussed during the hearing.
Why This Story Matters
The dispute illustrates how legal proceedings often involve strong arguments from both the prosecution and the defense.
Statements made by lawyers during hearings are advocacy on behalf of their clients and should not be interpreted as judicial findings or final conclusions.
The outcome of the proceedings will depend on the evidence presented and the decisions of the appropriate tribunal.
Key Takeaways
Prosecutor Lorna Kapunan defended using the word "scam" during the hearing.
The defense objected and sought to have the remark removed from the official record.
The prosecution and defense continue to dispute allegations involving confidential funds.
No final ruling has been issued on the underlying allegations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the defense object?
The defense argued that the prosecutor's use of the word "scam" was inappropriate and requested that it be removed from the official record.
Did the tribunal rule on the objection?
At the time of publication, proceedings were ongoing. Readers should refer to official updates for any subsequent rulings.
Does the prosecutor's statement establish wrongdoing?
No. The prosecutor's remarks represent the prosecution's legal arguments. Allegations remain disputed, and no final determination has been made.
Editorial Note
This article reports statements made during legal proceedings. References to a "scam" reflect the prosecution's characterization of the allegations and are not findings of fact. The defense disputes those allegations, and the matter remains subject to legal proceedings.
Rep. Benny Abante Denies Alleged Suitcase Money Claims Linked to Zaldy Co
February 25, 2026•3 min read
House lawmaker Benny Abante Jr. has firmly denied allegations that he received suitcases filled with cash, following claims made in a joint affidavit reportedly executed by 18 former soldiers.
Abante’s name surfaced in discussions surrounding alleged “maleta” transactions said to involve businessman Zaldy Co. According to circulating claims, certain government officials were allegedly recipients of large amounts of money delivered in suitcases.
The congressman responded categorically.
“The accusation that I accepted suitcases of cash is completely false, baseless, and malicious. I categorically deny it,” Abante stated.
He described the allegations as politically motivated and possibly part of efforts to discredit him due to his positions on key national issues.
The Allegations in Focus
The controversy stems from statements attributed to a group of former military personnel who claimed knowledge of deliveries involving large sums of money.
As of this writing:
No formal criminal charge has been filed against Abante.
No court ruling has established wrongdoing.
No official investigative body has released verified findings confirming the allegations.
These distinctions are critical in maintaining responsible public discourse.
In politically sensitive climates, allegations can quickly evolve into narratives — but legal accountability requires verified evidence and due process.
Abante’s Position
Abante maintains that:
The allegations are unfounded.
There is no proof supporting the claims.
The accusations may have political undertones.
He also emphasized that he remains committed to performing his duties as an elected representative and will not be distracted by what he characterizes as malicious attacks.
Public officials often face reputational challenges when accusations surface, particularly when the claims involve financial misconduct. A categorical denial signals his intent to confront the issue directly rather than allow speculation to circulate unanswered.
Legal and Institutional Process
Allegations involving suitcase cash deliveries potentially fall under:
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices laws
Anti-Money Laundering regulations
Election-related financial statutes
However, in democratic systems, allegations must transition from public claims to formal legal processes before conclusions can be drawn.
Such processes typically involve:
Sworn affidavits
Financial record examination
Witness cross-examination
Documentary corroboration
Prosecutorial review
Without these elements, claims remain allegations — not established facts.
The Political Dimension
The issue unfolds amid heightened political tensions and ongoing impeachment discussions, where alliances and oppositions are sharply defined.
In such environments, controversies may be interpreted in various ways:
As whistleblowing
As retaliation
As strategic political maneuvering
Or as genuine attempts to expose wrongdoing
Determining which applies requires institutional investigation, not assumption.
The Importance of Presumption of Innocence
In any democratic society, presumption of innocence remains fundamental.
Public accusations can carry significant reputational weight even in the absence of evidence. That is why responsible reporting emphasizes:
Clear labeling of claims as allegations
Avoidance of definitive guilt
Recognition of ongoing or pending processes
Until investigative authorities release findings, the matter remains unproven.
What Could Happen Next?
Several potential paths exist:
1️⃣ Authorities may formally investigate the affidavit claims.
2️⃣ The allegations may fail to produce supporting documentation and diminish.
3️⃣ The controversy may remain within political discourse without judicial resolution.
For the public, clarity will depend on whether formal mechanisms are activated to verify or dismiss the accusations.
If evidence exists, it must be presented through proper legal channels.
If evidence does not exist, the claims will struggle to withstand scrutiny.
Broader Implications
Allegations involving suitcase money often evoke strong public reaction because they suggest corruption at high levels of government.
But strong reactions must be balanced with caution.
History shows that political accusations can sometimes:
Be substantiated after investigation
Collapse due to lack of evidence
Or remain unresolved in public debate
The key determinant is evidence — not rhetoric.
Conclusion
Rep. Benny Abante has categorically denied allegations that he received suitcases of cash allegedly connected to Zaldy Co. He describes the claims as false and malicious, possibly politically motivated.
At present, no verified legal findings confirm the accusations.
As the issue develops, the focus remains on whether formal investigative bodies will examine the claims and present evidence.
In matters involving serious financial allegations, truth must be established through due process — not speculation.
