A BORING Rainy Evening Made Me Watch "Jacqueline Comes Home"

I remember reading a lot and I mean a lot of bad reviews on Jacqueline Comes Home. After many years of deciding not to watch it, I decided to watch it out of sheer boredom. I watched Give Up Tomorrow (read my review here) before this lackluster film, and even read the Supreme Court of the Philippines decision. For people who are curious about this incorrigible law student I ran into a few years ago--I'm not going to name her out loud. I wouldn't be surprised if this law student (I believe she's a lawyer now and I'll refer to her only as Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni (who also got married and I'll call her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya meaning To Invent Stories), to avoid direct confrontation since I feel she's not worth arguing with) would use the film Jacqueline Comes Home as "proof" of the "infallibility" of the Supreme Court decision, even when Given Up Tomorrow presented a lot of proof that something was horribly wrong with the Philippine justice system. Yesterday's heavy rain reminded me of how two sisters went missing during that heavy rain. 

I paid for an SD rental from YouTube. The film by Ysabelle Peach Caparas. I wonder what made the movie get bad reviews here and there. For example, IMDB gives it such a low score. If it were an exam, it's good as close to zero. I decided to watch it as history is now a recent hobby of mine. Fortunately, it's only Rated 13--in contrast to the exploitation film by Federico "Toto" Natividad Jr. called Animal (2004). I still believe that Marty Syjuco, the brother-in-law of Mrs. Mimi Larrañaga-Syjuco (her husband is Miguel Syjuco) with Michael Collons, interviewed Natividad along the way (read here). That means there wouldn't be scenes of the actresses Donnalyn Bartolome (Marijoy) and Meg Imperial (Jacqueline) getting completely naked, like in Animal (2004). Animal (2004) was a fictional movie with details close to Davidson's narration, instead of real people. I can only assume that Marty and Michael found Natividad irrelevant for the final cut. Part of me still wanted that aspect mentioned to discourage exploitation films. Did the late Charles Edward "Carlos" P. Celdran mention a thing about Animal (2004) during the premiere? Did Natividad show up during that same premiere too? 

A Calvento Files episode dramatized the testimony of the "star witness" Davidson Rusia. The suspect's names were all mentioned--Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga (who was in Quezon City at the time of the crime) up to the so-called star witness. It wasn't until someone told me that Paco was innocent. It shocked me to learn Paco was in Manila when the crime happened. I believe that Paco was guilty of some offenses but it turned out that the Chiong Case was a far stretch. Unlike the Calvento Files episode--the main villain is called Sonny. Was it because Sonny was supposed to represent Paco or was he supposed to represent the real suspect? I can't be sure. There's a scene of who could be Margarita Gonzales-Larrañaga talking to Thelma Jimenea-Chiong at the site where Marijoy was supposedly dumped. Once again, let me remind the readers I believe that the body was hers. However, failure to do further autopsy was uncalled for. 

Diving into the film's plot and events

Ryan Eigenmann portrays Sonny. Sonny leads this gang of delinquents with more than eight of them. Like the other members of the Chiong 7--we never get a direct mention of their names. I'd like to stress that artistic liberty was added. For example, in a scene where Sonny has one of his women (no name mentioned and must be another fictional character) whom he attempts to choke. Was there any incident that Paco did that? I believe Paco forced someone to go out on a date with him. The NBI's former head Atty Florencio O. Villarin, also testified Paco was a juvenile delinquent. However, Villarin also knew Paco wasn't involved in why the Chiong sisters went missing. Why was Villarin not allowed to testify during the trial? The gang members were merely put as "perpetrators". At the sentencing scene, there were more than seven--a far cry from the reality that we've had seven people who were sentenced by the late Judge Martin Ocampo to reclusion perpetua, twice. That should already be a careless mishandling. Couldn't they even edit for that scene? 

The trial scene in the movie differs from reality. If Naunsa Ba Ni should endorse the film--Give Up Tomorrow presents the anxiety and breakout of the Jimenea sisters. Both Cheryl S. Jimenea (who was Joseph Estrada's close friend and secretary) and Mrs. Chiong (who was given an office at that time by Estrada) got hysterical. Cheryl cried in front of the camera saying, "There's no justice given by this court!" Mrs. Chiong stated that the penalty should be none other than death. For a circus of a court, one must ask why did the so-called honest and incorruptible judge not even have the body examined? Why didn't the judge have the pictures examined? Why wasn't Paco even allowed to speak at all? The judge later said he wasn't certain if there was rape or murder, and doubted the body's identity (even after he rejected the forensic experts to see if the body belonged to Marijoy). That's why I have doubts concerning the Supreme Court decision, even though I never went to law school. I need not be a fireman or an electrician to understand their findings. I don't need to be an electrician to know improper wiring can cause a fire. I don't need to be an electrician to know exposed wires can cause much trouble or start a fire. I may require professionals to help me out. However, I don't need to be a professional to understand what professionals warn the public about. I don't need to be a lawyer to understand the basic right of presumed innocence for suspects. However, there might be a deleted scene of Alma Moreno doing Mrs. Chiong's angry scream after the trial concluded in Cebu City. It was probably cut out due to time constraints. 

Was there any proof that the Chiongs were extorted? There was one scene where the late Dionisio Chiong (played by Joel Torre, whose business has expanded in Singapore) was lied to. The scene involved people claiming they found Jacqueline. Did that event really happen or was it artistic liberty? I believe it was based on a fact. Until now, I still have sympathy for the Chiong family. However, several actions by Mrs. Chiong caused her loss public support. Using one's connections to the Philippine president was uncalled for. If the incident in the movie was real--perhaps it was because the Chiongs were still connected to Estrada. I already speculated (but never confirmed) that Estrada was the godfather of one of the sisters. I assume that Estrada was a godfather of Jacqueline--something I can't prove. If so, there's the possibility that these people who lied about finding Jacqueline wanted money from Estrada. Did the incident happen when Estrada was already tried for his alleged corruption charges? 

It tries to tell the crowd that Debbie Jane Jimenea Chiong-Sia is not Jacqueline. Sure, Jacqueline and Debbie look alike. There's an entire school to prove that Debbie was in elementary when the crime happened. It probably highlighted the possible estrangement between Debbie and her mother, if it ever happened. Debbie and the others may have gone to Canada during the ongoing trial. I believe that Estrada arranged for their departure. Immigration may have records of the three Chiong siblings leaving for Canada and returning to the Philippines from the same place. Speaking of immigration, it's hard to believe the judge just dismissed the flight records, even after that judge asked for evidence! Debbie was probably the daughter talking to Mrs. Chiong over that long-distance telephone, not one of her two older sisters! Was a scene of Debbie talking to Mrs. Chiong on the long-distance phone filmed? Some people can testify that Debbie isn't Jacqueline. Debbie would be in her late 30s. Jacqueline would be 50 years old if she were still alive. The narrative Debbie is Jacqueline under a new name can be disproven with scholastic records. Jacqueline graduated from the University of San Jose-Recoletos (USJ-R). Debbie graduated from the University of San Carlos (USC).

Another interesting narrative is the gossip. It's said that Jacqueline was thrown into the ocean. If this was true, why weren't these people summoned to court? They could've proven Paco's innocence though they could've been coerced into lying. Since it was very dark when the sisters were abducted--why did one of the witnesses later say she saw Paco when she initially couldn't identify anybody? The name of that witness in Ayala Center Cebu is Sheila Singson (read here). Davidson's story would fall apart if the witnesses were summoned to court. Give Up Tomorrow revealed in affidavits that Davidson was tortured into making a false testimony. As Dogan Gurkan, the owner of the boarding house (read here) said, "If I wanted to save my life, I would tell a lie." 

I'd like to address the illiterate woman's plight (read here). A dramatization of the scene where people gossiped that they heard a scream. However, the illiterate woman was either (1) forced to be added to the crowd just for the sake of another witness, or (2) the body was already dead when it was thrown down the cliff. This would further show the limitations of the film. If there were more clips of the witnesses--it could've helped. Instead, making a movie instead of a documentary may have limited everything. This continues to leave more questions Not to mention, Give Up Tomorrow shows that the Chiong family initially did not recognize the body. The body found at the ravine was already badly decayed. Meaning, that even if the body was indeed Marijoy's body, which I still believe was her, the face would be too decayed. Nobody came to claim the body either. Sadly, the family cremated the body because further examinations would've proven what really happened. 

What's also barely noticed in the movie is one angle of Mr. Chiong. Mr. Chiong lost his job and his daughters. Mr. Chiong may have discovered something that would've incriminated his boss, whose name was beeped out (but I'll call him Mr. Beep) of Give Up Tomorrow. Why was that angle not even put in the movie? Give Up Tomorrow presented the angle that the police never gave consideration to. Mr. Chiong was supposed to testify before the Senate but backed out. It's because Mr. Chiong lost his daughters. The chain of events from Mr. Chiong losing his job to losing his daughters can create a closer link. That means even if Paco and Josman Aznar (whose name was not mentioned in the film) were suitors of Marioy and Jacqueline--being suitors doesn't automatically mean they were the culprits! Why didn't the Supreme Court even reconsider investigating the claims of the alibis? The movie needed its own version of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr.--the idol of the 1987 Constitution idolaters. It's because Atty. Davide was actually married to Virginia Jimenea Perez-Davide. Give Up Tomorrow specified the connections the Chiongs had during the case. As Michael said, the irony was that Mrs. Chiong clouded the judicial process by using her connections. That raises more questions about why Paco's innocence is ignored--just because Marty was his brother-in-law's brother! Marty already admitted the bias was there. What would Naunsa Ba Ni have to answer about the degrees of Jimenea involved? 

Asian Madness Podcast

Was justice even done for the Chiongs? 

I still feel sorry for Mrs. Chiong, especially when she thought she had justice. Mrs. Chiong's lines from Give Up Tomorrow where she said, "Imagine I already had justice and they got back Paco." That was Mrs. Chiong's response when Paco was transferred to Spain, where he served his sentence. Mrs. Chiong's laugh may seem suspicious, but one can think she's trying to look strong. Mrs. Chiong probably cried hard before she laughed, thinking about getting revenge on Paco. Mrs. Chiong was still a victim (and I'm convinced that her daughters are both dead) who made terrible decisions (such as asking for help from the presidential office at that time) while trying to get justice for her daughters. Did Mrs. Chiong get justice with the court system? Why was the DNA test denied to the body? Was it bordered on superstitious belief? I can't be certain but it seems it's because the family accepted that the body was of their daughter. Nobody came forward to claim it, so who else could it be? That's why I believe that the fingerprints were Marijoy's. The judge could've benefited from a second DNA test but he refused. Even the Supreme Court of the Philippines refused. That's why I'm still in doubt about the decision made by the Supreme Court of the Philippines at that time, especially with Davide as a relative-by-marriage to the victimized family. Again, no justice if the wrong people are punished. 

Furthermore, I found this review which shares the sentiments of the movie. I highlighted in yellow showing where the movie can be problematic from so many angles:

People involved with the film say it's not about the perpetrators, but a large chunk of the story focuses on them, depicting them as cartoonishly evil dudebros who can't keep their dick in their pants. Instead of Paco Larrañaga, we have Sonny (Ryan Eigenmann), a violent drunk who stalks the Chiong sisters mercilessly. He and his gang stalk, rape (and possibly kill) a girl before the Chiongs, something with no basis in real life. It seems like the filmmakers think that the audience doesn't possess the capacity to accept the crimes committed unless the perpetrators are caricatures. Then, almost as an afterthought, there's a scene where Thelma Chiong (Alma Moreno) talks with Sonny's mother, who asserts her son's innocence. In the light of the rape and murder we just saw, this conversation comes off as insincere; and if one takes Sonny as an avatar for Paco (not an unreasonable notion, given that the two look similar), it ends up smearing Paco's family as a group of people who maintain innocence for a person who has clearly done something wrong. And here, the character stand-in for Davidson Rusia is portrayed as an unwilling participant, even though the real life Rusia participated in the rape and murder, if his testimony is to be believed.

Does the film honor the Chiong sisters? Nope. Their rape scene is gratituous; even though the two are fully clothed during the act, it feels pornographic. Caparas revels in the violence, virtually fetishizing it by drawing it out and making it as the film's climactic moment. It feels utterly exploitative, tasteless and insensitive, and it's something I really couldn't stomach. Don't take it from me, ask Thelma Chiong, who walked out of the cinema when she saw this scene. The younger Caparas said later "...I apologized to her for bringing her back to that sad experience." Well, what the hell did she expect, putting that woman through additional trauma? Whatever dignity these two sisters have left is taken away by displaying their rape for all the world to see. But I feel the Caparases don't really care. I think they operate on some sort of self righteous mission to create entertainment in the name of 'seeking justice.' Case in point: the elder Caparas' 1994 movie, The Untold Story: Vizconde Massacre II - May the Lord Be with Us!, a sequel to his first Vizconde Massacre movie. Why a sequel? The victims are already dead, and this is no zombie movie. What worth is it to restage traumatic events again and again other than extra box office receipts? What the hell is up with these people?

Does the film honor the Chiong family? It seems doubtful. The Chiong brothers are almost non-existent after the sisters disappear, and youngest daughter Debbie is depicted as little more than a placeholder for Jaqueline (she even tells her mother to call her Jacqueline in one scene). The parents are shown grieving, but the amateurish filmmaking doesn't help make their case.

Does the film shine a positive light on Cebuanos? Nope. They are either depicted as scammers or bystanders unwilling to help the Chiong family gain closure.

By reading the review above, who can remember VIVA Films? VIVA Films even created that award-winning garbage called The Flor Contemplacion Story (read here). The film was an attempt by Flor's family to prove her innocence. Flor's twin sons Joel and Jun Jun--joined the cast as themselves. The film was done by Joel Lamangan but still from VIVA Films. The reviewer of Jacqueline Comes Home spells it as it is. The part where Debbie allowed her mother to call her Jacqueline would further hurt the real Debbie. It's not enough that some people are claiming that Debbie is Jacqueline. Never mind that there's an entire school to prove that Debbie is Debbie. I can drag all of them to the Philippine Christian Gospel School (PCGS), a Baptist academy in Junquera, and they can say, "Oh I'm sure it's just tampered with!" Oh boy, talk about people who are trying to defend Paco's innocence regarding the case, while acting like the judge who caused Paco and six others, to rot in jail, for a crime they never committed. Those guys were delinquents but let's not falsely accuse people!

The rape scenes caused Mrs. Chiong to walk out. I would've walked out if I were that woman! I may not be impressed with her wrong decisions, such as giving Peach the blessing to make the film. Maybe, Mrs. Chiong regrets it now. Sure, the scenes of Jacqueline and Marijoy are nowhere near as explicit as what happened in Animal (2004). The film had the late John Regala as the villainous Jako Lozano (a caricature of Paco). The Tan sisters are portrayed by Via Veloso and Pyar Mirasol, both bold actresses. Animal (2004) went to extremes such as a waitress getting gang-raped (and one can see her breasts exposed) by Jako's gang (a sanitized version of that existed in Jacqueline Comes Home). Jako and his gang also cause the same victim to end her own life, through harassment. A later scene has the sisters Cherry and Sandra, both stand-ins for Jacqueline and Marijoy, getting stripped naked twice. Cherry and Sandra were raped at the gang's warehouse. What happened next was Jako and his gang stripping them naked against their will in the open, wanting them to dance naked, and the gang had a wild sex party. The women tried to escape but to no avail. Jako later shoots Sandra saying that if he can't have her, no one will. That scene also made me think that if Paco did all that on July 16--would he be able to go back to Manila as if nothing happened? It seems Natividad made the scenes out of disrespect. No wonder the Chiongs were outraged. I believe Mrs. Chiong should've thought twice before giving the blessing and attending the premiere. If only Mrs. Chiong saw the Vizconde Massacre movies and how sleazy they could be! 

True the rape scenes are nowhere near as brutal as Animal (2004). They were still fully clothed. However, it's still utterly exploitative, tasteless, and insensitive, and it's something that can't be easily stomached. It may not have scenes of Donnalyn and Meg getting stripped naked near the cliff, forced to dance naked, and then Sonny and the gang taking turns in raping the girls, unlike in Animal (2004). I must wonder if Natividad even saw the film or repented of making his exploitation film. What can't be denied is that, unlike Give Up Tomorrow, which was careful not to glorify the rape (if ever) of the sisters, the film still put it. Why it was given an R-13 rating despite the presence of the rape scenes is beyond me. Even worse, if Peach wanted to raise awareness for women's rights, that wasn't the right thing to do. I believe the rape scenes could've been shortened or even only mentioned in dialogue. Instead, why did we need those tasteless scenes? It was practically Animal's (2004) nude scenes but discounted. However, I'd like to stress that exploitation is exploitation. Even worse, how could Peach, as a woman, think of putting that in her films? Her father, Carlo J. Caparas, must also ask (since he was part of the film's crew) if he wants his daughter to be put into a similar situation. 

I'd like to say that the Chiong couple were wrong to give Peach permission, in hopes of clearing out the rumors. The Chiong parents could've presented documents like immigration records and Debbie's birth certificate, to clarify that Debbie isn't Jacqueline. Didn't the Chiongs combat the filming of the exploitative Animal (2004) film which was originally released as Butakal (Male Pig) in 1999? It took a long battle before the film was released in 2004. If ever Marty and Michael talked with Natividad--I could imagine what Natividad could've talked to them about. I could imagine Natividad probably made the exploitation film out of disbelief, more than anything else. In fact, spoiler alert, so readers don't need to watch the film--one of the Tan sisters actually survived the incident. Sandra showed up in court where she testified that she and her late sister Cherry, were gang-raped by Jako and his gang. I wonder if the scene was meant to show if Jacqueline survived the incident. Did Peach take the idea from the film Animal (2004) where one of the sisters survived the rape ordeal? Cherry's testimony was the nail to Jako's and his gang's coffin. If Jacqueline survived the ordeal, she would've already testified about who really did the crime. Maybe, Paco and his gang would've been acquitted. Unfortunately, it might be safe to assume that Jacqueline joined the list of murdered people whose body was never found. Unlike Cherry in Animal (2004)--Jacqueline never resurfaced while her name is written in a columbarium. 

It's really something that Mrs. Chiong still believes that Paco and company, did the murders. While watching this, I believe Mrs. Chiong really needs psychiatric help. I don't blame her for believing what was fed to her during the trial. It's easy to make wrong decisions when one's seeking justice--while under a lot of stress! However, I must wonder where the Chiong couple get the idea that Paco courted and threatened Marijoy. That threat was if Marijoy didn't break up with her boyfriend, who at that time was an engineering student, something bad would happen to her. But what if it was somebody else? 

Even this statement from the same review above reminds me of a law student, I dubbed as Naunsa Ba Ni, when she simply brushed off Give Up Tomorrow because it was made by a "cousin" of Paco: 

I had initially planned to write something humorous about this film, but there's nothing funny about the circumstances behind the film, so I decided against it. There's a scene near the end that many other reviewers have noted where a couple of law students talk to each other about the case. Some of the students admit that they think that some of the accused may be innocent. But this is quickly brushed off, with one student saying that the justice system should be trusted, a statement I find laughably naive. Say, if the Chiong 7 did not commit the crime they were accused of, then there are two miscarriages of justice: first and foremost, Jacqueline and Marijoy's true killer may still run free, and seven people will have spent their lives in prison for nothing.

Even more, the movie may leave more unresolved questions than the documentary, Give Up Tomorrow, where Marty acknowledged his "relation" to Paco, the brother of Paco's brother-in-law Marty. I share some similar sentiments with the writer of the article in 2018. I talked with someone who watched the film and said she had unexpected moments to laugh at. The beginning of the movie has some jarring acting scenes. Instead, it's how the scenes of Sonny stalking Marijoy can be so badly portrayed. The rape scene at the beginning was simply a preview of how bad the movie can get. Even more, the film's unintended laughs are like adding confectionary sugar to sinigang, a Filipino sour fish broth. In short, it's not even supposed to be there but it becomes unexpected. The unexpected laughs from several badly portrayed scenes--such as Sonny going after Marijoy--are badly done. The Calvento Files episode was better portrayed--to the point of the public getting outraged. 

This helps me recall my "final argument" with Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni. I told her that a crime can happen and the wrong people can be convicted. The scene of the debate between law students makes me laugh and cringe--at the same time! I once believed that both Hubert and Paco were guilty. Just because Hubert and Paco had bad records (I assume Hubert also had them), doesn't automatically make them guilty! Even if Paco courted Marijoy, courtship doesn't equal guilt! I can court this specific woman, even threaten her but if I wasn't the one who did the rape-slay, it'd be unfair to convict me! I can be sued for harassment and threat but not rape and murder. In legal matters, we only stick to the facts. However, Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni only gave a HaHa emoji reaction. Did she even hear of the execution of the late 14-year-old George Stinney, a crime he never committed? That incident should be brought up in law school as much as in murder cases where the body was never found. Maybe Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni did but she might reply, "Well, I'm sure George Stinney was guilty! There was a jury and there was a victim! I had to be him! I'm sure of it!" 

I could only imagine how Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya both handle their work as lawyers. Both husband and wife probably reject evidence from the defendant's side, without examining them. What if the defendant was innocent and the real perpetrator still remains free? Such behavior would make me assume the real people behind the crime may have also bribed the courts. Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni said there were conflicts between Paco's story and the teacher's. However, Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni seems to believe the "accuracy" of Davidson's story, never mind that the time lapse was very far. Even more, Davidson claimed that drugs and alcohol were used in the incident. Can one have a "perfect recollection" when one's mind is numbed? Previous stories pointed out that Sheila Singson didn't identify anyone during the initial investigation by the NBI. Why did Sheila say she saw Paco in Ayala when she previously said, she never saw anyone? Was it ghosts or money? With the promise of money--I assume that the witnesses were bribed into lying Paco was there. However, Paco wasn't there and more than 35 witnesses knew it. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni has been using the film as "evidence" to prove the Supreme Court of the Philippines' infallibility. I even asked her if she would buy the verdict of the Supreme Court of the Philippines' such as the dismissal of the well-documented ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family. I believe that arguing with Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni can lead to me getting further Ad Hominems because she's a lawyer and I'm not. It's really as stupid as me telling someone to shut up who's warning me that my house was on fire--all because the person warning me isn't a fireman! Come on, the house is on fire and while I may need a fireman to put it off, I don't need a fireman to know that the house is on fire, if it's on fire! I don't need to be a lawyer to realize these--evidence must always be examined, suspects have the right to defend themselves, and the wrong people can be arrested. However, Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni might operate with the mindset, "I trust the Philippine justice system will never convict an innocent person!" I assume Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya believes the Supreme Court of the Philippines is "infallible". Fortunately, the other panel said, "What if they were innocent?" However, the movie already puts Sonny as guilty because of what Sonny did. Also, a scene of Sonny's mother insisting on her son's innocence, even when Sonny is guilty, may be an indirect way of telling people that Paco is guilty. However, it's amazing that the Larrañagas didn't move to sue Natividad for that sleazy film Butakal (2004).

What I didn't ask Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni was, "How would you like it if you were framed for a crime you never committed? How would you like to know you're innocent but tried by publicity by a public that wrongfully that you're guilty?" Chances are Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni might arrogantly say it'll never happen to her, like an arrogant teenager. If ever Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya have children--they need to put themselves in the shoes of the Chiongs and the Larrañagas. The Larrañagas have knowledge of the kind of troublemaker Paco was. Paco wasn't a good boy and he admits to his bad reputation. However, the family also knew that Paco was in Manila when the crime happened. How would Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya wants it that they have a child, that child gets falsely accused, and they can't do a thing about it. I pray it doesn't happen to them. However, if it happens to them, maybe Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya might have a rude awakening. The Chiongs still believe the same old narrative, that the Chiong 7 were indeed the ones who caused them to lose their daughters. I don't blame them for still believing that narrative. The family lost two daughters and it's only natural they want justice. The late Lauro Vizconde thought he had justice but he was dead wrong. Hubert was later released when it turned out he was also innocent. Like the Vizconde Massacre, it seems like the real mastermind of the Chiong Sisters' disappearances will never be known. 

It still leaves the questions. Who was the real killer or who masterminded the Chiong sisters going missing? Whoever the drug lord was during that time--why wasn't that angle explored in the investigation process? Why was the crime hit on Paco and seven other men, who all turned out innocent That's what Give Up Tomorrow presented. The review I read states it right in saying that the true murderers may still be running free (and maybe in another country by now) while the seven others were wrongfully sentenced. From that angle, I wonder if Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento  Ug Istorya might be serving as one of Mr. Beep's lawyers. If anything, Give Up Tomorrow gave a better sense of justice for the Chiong Sisters. Justice can't be established if the wrong people are punished. Given that Paco was truly indeed in Manila when it happened--the movie should be dismissed as another pathetic exploitation film! 

As said, I can't convince everyone that there was a mishandling of justice. Some people will still believe that the Supreme Court of the Philippines makes no mistakes. However, they need to Google "innocent people on death row" to find out that no Supreme Court in any country, is infallible. Until the right persons are found and punished, no justice is ever given to the victims.