Dear Editor,

I am writing this as a law student in response to DAILY TRIBUNE’s headline story, “Ping: Cabral ready to talk,” which frames the death of former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Undersecretary Maria Catalina Cabral within a narrative that quickly casts doubt on the initial suicide finding and hints at darker possibilities.

Cabral’s death is undeniably tragic and deserves compassion, restraint and a serious investigation. What it does not deserve, at least not yet, is the speed with which speculation has begun to harden into assumption. The suggestion that her willingness to meet with senators somehow dismantles the suicide angle is understandable but not logically sound.

As we’ve learned in our criminal law subjects, human behavior under extreme pressure rarely follows tidy lines. Individuals facing potential criminal exposure, reputational ruin and public vilification may seek legal counsel, explore cooperation, and still succumb to despair. These are not contradictory states, but often coexist.

Much has also been made of the assertion that Cabral “knew too much.” Knowledge, however, is not evidence. It is an inference, often assigned retroactively when a scandal surrounds a death.

Claims that she was a “key enabler” or the architect of funding formulas, as raised by Rep. Leandro Leviste in that other TRIBUNE story, may yet be proven. Still, repeating them does not make them factual. At this stage, they remain allegations.

The recurring question — “Who benefits?” — is rhetorically potent but legally thin. It invites the public to assume foul play by implication rather than proof. History shows that investigations driven by narrative momentum rather than evidence tend to unravel under scrutiny.

Calls to secure Cabral’s gadgets and records are proper and necessary. That is standard procedure in cases involving public funds and potential criminal liability. But preserving evidence is not the same as proving homicide, coercion, or silencing. Conflating the two risks undermining the credibility of the very institutions tasked with uncovering the truth.

There is also a danger in politicizing grief. When public officials cast doubt on preliminary findings before forensic and medico-legal reviews are complete, they risk eroding public trust in due process. Accountability is not strengthened by insinuation.

Suicide, particularly among public officials under immense pressure, should not be treated as an implausible convenience. It is a documented and tragic reality. To dismiss it outright is not vigilance but bias.

None of this argues for closure without scrutiny. It argues for discipline. If corruption is to be exposed, it will be through documents, money trails, sworn testimony and corroboration, not through inference layered upon grief.

Respectfully yours,

Marcial Regente

Greenland Subd.

Cainta, Rizal