Case Unclosed on the Chiong Sisters

Apology: I'm sorry that the video above is in Tagalog, so sorry in advance to non-Filipino readers.

As long as an injustice happens, nobody should shut up about a case unclosed. Like the Vizconde Massacre case, nobody really knows who did the crime. With Davidson Rusia's story put into question, one must wonder what really happened in detail. I still believe that the body found in Carcar is really Marijoy Jimenea Chiong. However, the claim that the sperm of the main suspect, Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga, and the rest weren't found, makes you wonder who did the autopsy. In my case, the body found in Carcar wasn't formally identified until fingerprints were taken by the police. Nobody claimed the body of the woman found in Carcar.

It's easy to say that Give Up Tomorrow is biased because the maker of the video, is a "relative" of Paco (read here). However, Marty Syjuco is the brother of the brother-in-law of Paco. The brother of one's brother-in-law doesn't make the two, legally related. Marty is the brother-in-law of Mimi Larrañaga-Syjuco, not Paco's brother-in-law.

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

This really puts a lot into question. I believe that Josman Azmar may have courted the presumed late Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong. However, Paco and others admitted that he wasn't a suitor of Marijoy at all. Maybe, the father of the Uy brothers personally knew the Chiong parents. I still refuse to believe what he said about that long-distance call from Canada. That's unless the daughter mentioned was actually the youngest, Debbie Jane Jimenea Chiong-Sia. Paco and Josman knew each other, which may explain why Paco was the next possible suspect. The Uy brothers have met Rowan Adlawan and knew the star witness Davidson. Davidson wasn't legally allowed to testify so why did he testify? The documentary revealed that Davidson was actually tortured. Rowen said in an interview that Davidson was tortured into lying. Apparently, Rowen knew Davidson. However, Rowen was barely known by the first two suspects. I must even question how Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag got arrested if they apparently never knew the other six suspects? My only speculation is that both Alberto and Ariel may have worked for the Aznars, which may have made them very susceptible to wrongful arrest.

Rewatching the video above, there are a lot of things that just don't make any sense. Atty. Florencio O. Villarin was later barred from testifying. Villarin went to the workplace of Jacqueline to find out anything. Villarin said that the owner of the boardinghouse said the place was too small. The owner of the video is shown above. Take a look at the place. It's really very small to fit a sex party with eight men and two rape victims. The rooms would be too small also to split between the two groups.

This is a very far cry from what was shown in the film Animal (2004). It's an exploitation film (and viewer's discretion is advised) that was loosely based on the Chiong case. The late John Regala played Jaco Lozano--a parody of Paco. The late Federico Natividad Jr. suffered a lawsuit from the Chiong family (read here). Was it possible that Natividad Jr. himself was interviewed when Give Up Tomorrow was filmed? Animal (2004) was supposed to be released in 1999 but the lawsuit came in. The film made it to theaters. The film had a huge warehouse where Jaco and his goons would hang out. Jaco and his goons could carry out their sexy party in that place because it's a lot bigger than the alleged place where Jacqueline and Marijoy were raped. Watching the film, the place where the sisters Cherry and Sandra were raped was bigger compared to the boardinghouse in Guadalupe, Cebu City.

It's too bad that I was only a teenager when the case happened.

Nirvana Fallacy and the Die-Hard Defenders of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

IMGUR The philosopher Voltaire (real name François-Marie Aroue ) was said to have said, "Perfect is the enemy of good." To define the Nirvana fallacy, we can look at Logically Fallacious to help us define it: Description: Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one , and discounting or even dismissing the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard, ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason . Logical Form: X is what we have. Y is the perfect situation. Therefore, X is not good enough. Example #1: What’s the point of making drinking illegal under the age of 21? Kids still manage to get alcohol. Explanation: The goal in setting a minimum age for drinking is to deter underage drinking, not abolish it completely. Suggesting the law is fruitless based on its failure to abolish underage drinking completely, is fallacious. Example #2: What’s the point of living? We’re all going to die anyway. Ex...

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? ...

A Parliamentary Philippines with Mandatory Weekly Questioning Will Be Better Than Its Mandatory Yearly Presidential SONAs

Rappler I must admit that ignorance of the difference between the parliamentary system vs. the presidential system is there. Some people still insist on the myth that the first Marcos Administration headed by President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.'s late father, Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., was really a parliamentary system. In reality. the Marcos "parliamentary" years during the Martial Law era, were still presidential (read why here ). A simple research would show that Cesar Virata was called by the late Lee Kuan Yew, as a non-starter and no leader. LKY would know how a real parliamentary system works. Sure, it's one thing that those who consider themselves Dilawan, voice their criticisms. However, the big problem of the Dilawans is their focus on political idolatry rather than solutions. I can talk with the Dilawans all they want that we do need to shift to the parliamentary system and some of them still cry foul, say that it'll be a repetition of the first Marcos Admi...

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...

Don't Expect a Mahathir-Type Leader, Under the 1987 Constitution!

ABS CBN News Happy 100th birthday, Mahathir Mohamad! It's something that not so many people live up to 100, or more. The late Fidel V. Ramos passed away on July 31, 2022, at the age of 94. Ramos's advanced age may be the reason why the Omicron variant (which isn't supposedly fatal) ended his life. I'm posting this image of Ramos and Mahathir for one reason--Ramos wanted charter change back in the 1990s. However, plenty of anti-charter change commercials came in, the late Raul Roco said we only need a change in people, and we have Hilario G. Davide Jr. (who's in his late 80s but still active), and the idea that having a president who will rule for more than six years, is supposedly scary. Please, have they even thought that the late Pol Pot ruled Cambodia for just four years, but carried millions of deaths , that would make the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s 20-year reign look tame (read here )? I've read posts on Facebook saying the Philippines just needs l...

A Business Graduate's Reviewing History Blog

Search This Blog