Skip to main content

Today in History: Why Revisiting Paco Larrañaga's UNJUST Arrest is Still a Must Until Today

A diagram found on Facebook, apparently owned by
the late Miguel "Juan" Del Gallego y Ripoll

I have updated my review of the documentary Give Up Tomorrow more than once. The late Charles Edward P. Celdran even called it a trial by publicity. I could remember the shocked face I made when was told that Francisco Juan G. Larrañaga was innocent. What amazed me is that my friend (I will not mention his name) was also with Paco on that night. Cebu City Vice Mayor Raymond Alvin N. Garcia was among the many witnesses who testified that Paco was in school.

There's no denying that Paco himself had previous cases. But the basis of making Paco a suspect can be very loose. There was his alleged kidnapping of a certain Rochelle Virtucio. It's possible that Rochelle never saw the faces of the real perpetrators of the kidnapping attempt. How in the world was Paco suddenly identified as the suspect? It's probably because Paco had a bad reputation it was easy to pin the crime down on him. Was it because Paco had some fights? It's not denied by Atty. Florencio O. Villarin, the former NBI head, that Paco had some of his fights. I don't know if Villarin could verify that Paco tried to kidnap Rochelle or not. Right now, Villarin is retired in his late 80s and he may not remember things clearly as before. Even if Paco did try to kidnap Rochelle before--the fact was he was in Manila when the crime happened. However, that's a loose basis for arresting Paco and the six co-accused.

It was alleged that Paco courted Marijoy. It seems that the only suspect who courted one of the sisters was Josman Aznar. There's no evidence that Josman courted the presumed late Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong. If ever, I believe Jacqueline herself is the victim of a body never found murder case. Jacqueline's body may have been disposed of effectively by the real perpetrators. It's possible for Josman to court Jacqueline while Paco never knew the Chiong sisters. It's like my friend can be courting this girl but I'd never know anything about the girl or the girl's family. It seems to be what happened why it was alleged that Paco courted Marijoy. I believe Josman did court Jacqueline while the rest never heard of the Chiong sisters.  

There were pictures (and negatives) that proved Paco was indeed in Quezon City. I remembered running into some idiot woman on Facebook who insisted that the Supreme Court decision was more reliable than the documentary. I wonder if this woman (only known as "Nam Nam") actually watched the documentary as she claims? She even erroneously calls Marty Syjuco, Paco's cousin, when that guy is the brother of Paco's brother-in-law. Did she even realize that Hilario G. Davide Jr. was related to Thelma Jimenea-Chiong by marriage? Did she even realize that the late Judge Martin Ocampo didn't have the evidence examined before dismissing them? Any good judge will have them examined rather than jump to conclusions. If the judge wanted to make sure that the 35 witnesses were lying--why not cross-examine them? Why dismiss them immediately? I don't need to be a lawyer to understand that's a violation of the fair rules of law!

The arrest itself was already unlawful to start with. Why did the people who arrested Paco even ignore the records? There was a record of the Center of Culinary Arts that Paco was indeed in school. Paco even went back to Cebu to clear his name. Does that look like the action of a guilty person? True, Paco did deserve some legal action against him in the past. However, you can never achieve justice for the two sisters who suddenly went missing (and I believe both are dead) by arresting the wrong people. 

Popular posts from this blog

The 1986 Snap Elections Would Also Disprove the Myth of the "Marcos Parliament"

Anti-charter change proponents love to use Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. among their reasons, to defend their stand. The argument is that "charter change must be evil" because Marcos used it--a fallacy of Guilt by Association . Please, even Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo's supporter  Andrew James Masigan  supports charter change! Now, we must look at Marcos and remember another significant event. It's the 1986 snap elections and why it's also proof that we never had a parliamentary form of government. February 7, 1986, was when Marcos declared snap elections. Two years before the snap election, Marcos even declared that the Philippines was never a parliamentary government under him : The adoption of certain aspects of a parliamentary system in the amended Constitution does not alter its essentially presidential character . Article VII on the Presidency starts with this provision:  ‘the President shall be the Head of State and Chief Executive of the Republic of the Ph...

Facts vs. Gossip: The "Chona Mae" Incident is Proof You NEED to Verify What You Hear

It was in 2012 when the Chona Mae incident happened. I remember the panic when people were running the opposite direction while I was working at Downtown, Cebu. The traffic was bad. People were panikcing. But the real twist? It was actually a father looking for his daughter, whose identity we may never know.  The Cebu Daily News   said this last 2022, which was before entering the post-COVID world: CEBU CITY, Philippines — It has been a decade since the famous “Chona Mae” line was uttered by a father looking for her daughter after a 6.9 magnitude earthquake struck the island of Cebu, February 6, 2012 .  From what was a simple call of a father to his daughter turned out to be the biggest tsunami scare in Cebu City.  “Ang tubig naa na sa Colon!” ("The Water is already in Colon!") was the line that has gotten everyone running on the street of Cebu looking for shelters up in the mountain parts of Cebu.  Today, we remember that frightful yet somehow funny day that w...

The Foolishness of Complaining About Stupid Voters and Stupid Candidates, While Insisting the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "So Perfect"

I was looking into the Facebook page of Butthurt Philippines . Honestly, it's easy to complain but what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions? The art produced by its administrator shows some problems. However, if the administrator here believes that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "perfect as it is" (and he seems to be throwing a "saving face" by saying it was just sarcasm, and I failed to detect it) then it's really something. It's one thing to keep complaining. Complaining can be good. However, what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions. Even worse, complaining about the quality of candidates for the upcoming 2025 midterm elections , while still saying, "It's not the system it's the people!" Please, that kind of thinking has been refuted even by basic psychology and political science! It's really good to point out the three problems. Distractions? Check. Keeping people hopeless? ...

Rare Interview Footage of Ninoy Aquino and Doy Laurel in Japan, Reveal Marcos Years Were NEVER a Legitimate Parliamentary System

People who are afraid of shifting to a parliamentary system tend to use the Marcos Years as proof. Fearmongers on Facebook are still up to their old tricks, using the Marcos Years to say, "No to cha-cha!" Never mind that a new constitution had to be written after 1986. If anything, Article XVII was inserted in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines because it was never meant to be set in stone. Also, the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was illegal .  Here's a video of the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel. The words of Laurel here show the problem of Marcos' "parliament". Marcos' "parliament" lacked legitimacy . Where was the sporting chance of the Opposition? If it was a real parliamentary system, Ninoy would've been leading the Opposition in weekly debates against the Marcos-led government. That is if the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was the prime minister. If Cesar Vir...

Why I Believe So Many Filipinos (Especially Boomers) Misunderstand (and Blindly Oppose) Charter Change

Okay, I'm no political analyst or historian. That doesn't mean I should just shut up and not share my opinion. I felt like I needed to publish this piece. This is where I want to examine another issue. I've noticed some people on Facebook are sharing the quotes of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. Some would try to do Ad Hominem attacks on me because I'm no constitutionalist (which I admit that I'm not). Just because I'm not a constitutionalist, doesn't mean, that I can't quote from the experts . Do I really need a degree in law at one of those prestigious universities in the Philippines? Sadly, some people are supposedly smarter than me but are the ones spreading nonsense.  Understanding charter change We need to see the definition first to understand why so many Filipinos, especially boomers , are so against it. The Philippine Star   gives this definition of charter change: Charter change, simply, is the process of introducing amendments or revisions to the ...