Sheila Singson was still mentioned in Give Up Tomorrow but not this whole part. This deleted scene features Atty. Florencio O. Villarin and his interview with Sheila. We do have more unheard-of clips of the interview with Pros. Teresita Gallanida. What I want to focus on is the interview with Villarin, the very person whom the Chiong parents went to ask for help. Ironically, the late Dionisio Chiong ended up calling Villarin a liar. Was it because the Chiong parents wanted instant justice or felt that the "testimony" of Davidson V. Rusia was "more than enough"?
Starting at 2:21, I decided to pay attention to what Villarin said. At that time, Villarin was still at the NBI. The following day, Villarin went to the workplace of the late Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong. Jacqueline was noted to have worked at the Global Village which used to be at Ayala Center, Cebu. This person was named Sheila Singson. Villarin mentions that Sheila couldn't identify and neither gave a real clear picture. However, the witnesses that Villarin interviewed at Ayala never mentioned anything about Juan Francisco G. Larrañaga aka Paco at that time.
Starting at 2:21, I decided to pay attention to what Villarin said. At that time, Villarin was still at the NBI. The following day, Villarin went to the workplace of the late Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong. Jacqueline was noted to have worked at the Global Village which used to be at Ayala Center, Cebu. This person was named Sheila Singson. Villarin mentions that Sheila couldn't identify and neither gave a real clear picture. However, the witnesses that Villarin interviewed at Ayala never mentioned anything about Juan Francisco G. Larrañaga aka Paco at that time.
This is where inconsistency starts to draw in. I don't want to judge a book by its cover. However, by looking at Sheila, she does give me the impression that she's not a trustworthy person. Why did she suddenly point at Paco of all people? Did she not say that she never recognized anyone, not even the face in the cartographic sketch? Aside from other witnesses in Ayala who said they never saw Paco, why did she suddenly say she saw Paco?
This is a very inconsistent chain of events. It was July 16, 1997, when the two sisters suddenly went missing. It was a few days later when the body of who I believe to be Marijoy was found. The suspects started to get rounded up. As Villarin said, it was a very premature apprehending. Eventually, we had the arrest done on May 5, 1997. Ironic that the trial "concluded" on May 5, 1999. No trial could begin without any evidence. A significant amount of time would've taken place between July 18, 1997, to the time of the trial, which happened one year after the arrest.
This is a very inconsistent chain of events. It was July 16, 1997, when the two sisters suddenly went missing. It was a few days later when the body of who I believe to be Marijoy was found. The suspects started to get rounded up. As Villarin said, it was a very premature apprehending. Eventually, we had the arrest done on May 5, 1997. Ironic that the trial "concluded" on May 5, 1999. No trial could begin without any evidence. A significant amount of time would've taken place between July 18, 1997, to the time of the trial, which happened one year after the arrest.
Why did Sheila suddenly say she saw Paco when she never identified the person? Was it ghosts or money? As mentioned earlier, looking at Sheila's face seems to give me the impression she might be an untrustworthy person. For all we know, maybe, just maybe, Sheila herself has probably bribed a good sum of money to testify it was Paco. I have no evidence of bribery. Maybe, just maybe, Sheila, like Davidson, was actually tortured into telling a lie. For all we know, that unidentified drug lord in the documentary may actually have pulled the strings of the so-called witnesses.
Updated: July 14, 2023