A woman was made to sign an affidavit by the police? Okay, I still believe that the body was really that of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong. Even if it were Marijoy, the fact that this woman has said police at that time falsified her statement. I was shocked to hear this one. The woman was made to sign an affidavit that she didn't understand. This makes me agree with Leo Lastimosa's statement that why wasn't the whole case looked at from another angle. Remember that the Chiong sisters disappeared when the late Dionisio Chiong was supposed to testify against a certain someone. Why wasn't this certain someone investigated from that angle? Instead, the police caught eight people, including Davidson. Davidson was tortured into telling lies.
Let's try to connect the dots of this woman's story. A certain Ricardo on YouTube was kind enough to give this translation to copy and paste:
I just told them the truth because I just gave birth that time about 2 months. I said I heard something but it DIDN’T make me WONDER because it was a Wednesday night, right? There really are a lot (of cars) which will pass and stop by, and on Thursdays that’s really already a market. There are a lot (of people/vendors) that will stop there; the cows, the carabaos. Yes, that’s what I thought it was. I didn’t tell them this and that (she’s referring to the twisted version of her original story by the police and media). I really didn’t.
A normal every day working woman's life gets turned topsy-turvy. Just thinking about the many cars means how anybody could easily spot the alleged white van in Davidson's story. I remembered the dramatization in The Calvento Files had Marijoy tossed off the cliff while she was alive. Yet, this woman saw nothing. I have a feeling that the body of who I believe is Marijoy wasn't thrown from the cliff while alive but may have already been dead when it happened. If there was really some loud partying as Davidson said (such as the alleged account that the late Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong was forced to dance)--the woman never heard it.
It was also interesting that in the narrative, a certain Mario Miñoza, was a witness but apparently never saw the faces of the people who harassed Jacqueline:
...Meanwhile, Mario Miñoza,[35] a tricycle driver plying the route of Carcar-Mantalongon, saw Jacqueline running towards Mantalongon. Her blouse was torn and her hair was disheveled. Trailing her was a white van where a very loud rock music could be heard. Manuel Camingao[36] recounted that on July 17, 1997, at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning, he saw a white van near a cliff at Tan-awan. Thinking that the passenger of the white van was throwing garbage at the cliff, he wrote its plate number (GGC-491) on the side of his tricycle.[37]
Take note that I'm taking bits and pieces of the court that the Supreme Court failed to re-examine. It supposedly "perfectly fit" with Davidson's story. However, what amazes me is how in the world could that easily fit in? Both Mario and Manuel only saw the white van. I don't think both of them saw who the real passengers were. I was wondering was the plate number of the white van really matched up with Davidson's story? All that Davidson could "agree with the witnesses in Ayala was that they saw Paco in Ayala. However, previous investigations had it that Sheila Singson, a co-worker of Jacqueline, initially never identified anybody.
As the woman says, she really saw nothing during that time. So, it was Wednesday then it was Thursday. As for the white van, it seems that the body thrown at the ravine was no longer alive which would further cloud Davidson's story. Apparently, several people were bought to lie by some unknown party. I have a feeling that people were forced to lie. I feel that while Rowne may have been buying barbecue at that time--was that substantial evidence to link him to that white van?
This also has a curious case of the white van with plate number GGC-491. There were also some conflicting stories. This reminds me of how Paco's story had some inconsistencies when he was asked to remember by memory. Paco was just wrongfully arrested and the stress can be so great. I guess the same thing happened to those who testified for Ariel Balansag and Alberto Caño. Apparently, this certain Clotilde Soterol had to rely on her own memory too. Since Clotilde would have to recall based on her memory some time ago, there's really room for error. It's pretty much like how Paco couldn't have a perfect match because he was wrongfully arrested, had no access to records, etc.
This reminds me of what Atty. Florencio O. Villarin stated in the documentary. Villarin did interview Sheila Singson who supposedly never identified Paco only to make a U-turn in court. The documentary revealed that there was reward money for the witnesses. Apparently, the witnesses of the white van used in the crime may have been either bribed or forced to write a different plate number. Maybe, the plate number was really something else. Maybe, this certain Manuel only saw the white van but never saw the body. I believe that these people did see something but never pointed out to the facts looked for.
I wonder if the reward money made these witnesses testify to say they saw this. My speculation can go like this. Sheila only saw a suspicious figure but never formally identified it. Maybe, that cartographic sketch produced at the NBI would never match Paco's face. Maybe, all that Mario and Manuel saw were two different white vans. It's possible that the van GGC-491 was really doing some illegal dumping but not the body of a woman. Speaking of the 5 a.m. claim, Paco was also in Manila at that time. It would be impossible also for Paco to simply take a flight after dumping Marijoy's body into the ravine.
One must wonder what really happened. It should make you ask, "What if I could be next?" Even nobodies can be victims in a very broken justice system.
Updated: July 16, 2023