 |
| Photo credited to Michael Collins and Marty Syjuco |
I remember getting the shock of my life when somebody told me, "You still remember Larrañaga? He was innocent!" in Cebuano. I replied with a "Huh?" It seemed too good to be true. After I heard it, I checked out Give Up Tomorrow (read my review here) sometime before the badly made movie Jacqueline Comes Home came out in 2018. I decided to check the movie a few years later out of boredom but it was more boring than the rainy evenings (read my review here). I even had a friend (will not mention his name to protect his privacy) who was with Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga on that night. The photo above couldn't be manipulated at all. If one is in doubt, why not have the photos checked for authenticity rather than just jump to the conclusion?
The Chiong Sisters went missing on July 16, 1997. Paco was later rounded up as one of the suspects in a crime that happened on July 16, 1997. Where was Paco at that time? Paco, while a resident of Cebu, was in Manila during that time. It was said that Paco allegedly attempted to kidnap a certain Rochelle Virtucio. If I'm not wrong, Paco admitted to that crime. Based on the details given, it's a poorly orchestrated kidnapping attempt. Paco was already known to be a bad boy in Cebu, something he also admitted during the Dong Puno interview, as shown in Give Up Tomorrow. However, I heard it was dismissed possibly because Paco, who had a bad reputation, was studying in Quezon City. If so, where are the identities of the other unruly teenagers who were with Paco during that time? None of those included Davidson Rusia and the Uy brothers, James Anthony and James Andrew. Paco and Josman Aznar (who's five years older than Paco) knew each other but not Davidson. Also, Josman's original case was drug possession and illegal possession of firearms.
People may do Ad Hominems on me, and maybe even law students will say, "Are you smarter than the Supreme Court or us lawyers?" Just because I'm not smarter than them or I'm writing using a free domain, doesn't automatically make me wrong! Just because someone is using a paid domain doesn't mean they're automatically right. However, I do sometimes ask the question if they're smarter than the late Lee Kuan Yew or Kishore Mahbubani, whenever they quote from Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. Speaking of Atty. Davide, he was also involved in the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Davide's wife was a relative of the Chiong Sisters. Could that relation have caused Paco's appeal to be turned down despite the plea to have a DNA test of the body, which may not even be Marijoy's? Even if the body was Marijoy's--a second test wouldn't hurt to be sure. DNA testing and any other tissue samples may also prove Paco didn't do the crime.
 |
| Asian Madness Podcast |
Judge Teresita Galanida, one of those who got promoted after the trial, even pointed out that Paco was looking sideways and only his chair was black. A big question that I might've asked and lost my temper in the process would be, "Okay, why don't you have that evidence tested and see if it was really a fake?" I remember Cebu City Vice Mayor Raymond N. Garcia even brought negatives in court. I was wondering why did Vice Mayor Garcia bring negatives? My 13-year-old angry self only wanted justice for the victims. Most people believed Paco was already guilty based on what the late Carlos P. Celdran calls a "trial by publicity". If they wanted to see if it was a camera trick--why not have it examined? However, I guess that for the sake of ratings and popular public opinion, Paco was already declared guilty over something he never did. Sure, Paco did a lot of bad things but it's still unethical to pin him down on something he couldn't have done.
The conflicting accounts between Paco and the teachers
Sure, there were conflicts in Paco's account vs. the teachers. That was the basis when I ran into Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni on Facebook. I don't intend to continue arguing with that fool or I'd stress myself out. At the same time, not being a lawyer means I'm at a disadvantage especially when Ad Hominem is the favorite weapon of people to win a battle.
Jourdan Sebastian publicly posted on Facebook:
Regarding Paco’s and the Teacher’s Conflicting Stories... When Paco gave his written affidavit about July 16, I believe it was months after July 16. He was yanked from his home and brought to a precinct. In shock, in disbelief, harassed and pressured he was demanded to write what he was supposed to be doing on a particular normal day that happened months before. Because it was for a high-profile case he was not released and was only allowed to talk to lawyers and family members. They also had no idea what he was doing on July 16. So he had to rely on his own memory. Mind you he had no access to records or to people who were with him during that time. He couldn’t ask anybody or even check his schedule or notes if he had any. Let me ask you... without checking your smartphone, given his same condition of an accused in jail... would you be able to recall exactly what you were doing just last June 16, 2018... which was a month ago? Given it was an ordinary day? Can you get all your details exactly correct?
When his teacher later on testified in court about July 16... I believe more than a year had passed already. The teacher, who had access to her written schedules and her calendar, the chance to ask students and colleagues and the capacity to check class records... may be more accurate in her recollection. That is understandable.
But if both Paco and his teacher both had precisely identical testimonies... what would that mean? Either both had perfect memory of an ordinary day that happened a long time before... or one of them altered their story to fit the other. No, that didn’t happen.
Can anybody rely on a perfect memory? Even more, Davidson the "star witness" supposedly had "perfect recollection" of the crime that he and the others supposedly committed on July 16. Jourdan also writes this publicly on Facebook:
Now let’s go to the star witness’ testimony... which as Ms. Lagcao stated, perfectly fitted the evidence provided by the police and prosecution. Here are the facts:
1. If my memory serves me right... the star witness had a criminal record and was actually in prison for a different offense when he suddenly became a state witness.2. He was held by the same authorities who had access to the evidence that was going to be used in court.3. He perfectly corroborated all the evidences.4. He was powerfully detailed even if the incidents he was narrating happened more than a year after.5. He had perfect recollection of what happened even if drugs and alcohol were being used heavily at the time of the crime.Yet there was a perfect testimony by an imperfect witness... who was granted freedom soon after.The testimony of this man was allowed... but 40 people who were all upstanding citizens with zero criminal records, armed with pictures and official documents.... were not allowed to testify?
Judging by Paco's recollection from memory vs. Davidson's claims of what happened while was supposedly under the influence of drugs--how can we reconcile it? I don't need to be a neurologist to understand this--drugs and alcohol being used heavily can alter the memory. I tried being drunk one and it wasn't even a huge amount. I can't recall everything I did when I was drunk. How can Davidson even claim to remember everything clearly? Even worse, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, at that time, still sided with Davidson's unbelievable story.
Can Paco do the crime and go back to Manila like nothing happened?
While watching it, Solita Collas-Monsod may not be a person I admire. However, I'm going to give credit where credit is due. Mrs. Monsod's expression in the film was funny. Sure, I don't like Mrs. Monsod's rather stuck-up attitude against reforming the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, I'd like to commend her for pointing out the late Judge Martin Ocampo's colorful imagination. How can Paco hire an airplane, go to Cebu to do the dastardly deed, go back to Manila to do the dastardly deed, and take back his exams the next day, with no record whatsoever? I wonder if Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni considered it when she read the Supreme Court decision?
I watched Jacqueline Comes Home and even the controversial exploitation film Animal (2004) as a reference. Hopefully, I'll be able to rewatch the Calvento Files episode that dramatized the testimony of Davidson. What I can remember is that all three depictions (take note that Animal is just a work of fiction, not a dramatization of the real case) portray a long-night assault. Could Paco really fly to Cebu with a private jet, do the dastardly deed from that time at that time, fly to Manila, and take his exams like nothing happened? The judge kept asking for proof but the judge wasn't as honest and incorruptible. In fact, Judge Ocampo was already charged with graft even before he held the case. A judge with low credibility (so much for saying he was honest and incorruptible) would naturally listen to a witness with low credibility! Judge Ocampo was even seen sleeping live on television. Why didn't anybody protest against it? Judge Ocampo had a colorful imagination and low common sense. It's possible to be qualified to be a judge but have low common sense! Judge Ocampo was estranged from his family as well. If I remember clearly, Judge Ocampo checked in with a much younger woman in that same place where he was found dead. Right now, I believe in Dr. Raquel Fortun's conclusion that the judge indeed took his life. Judge Ocampo's body was supposed to be cremated but it had to be studied. I give the benefit of the doubt suicide happened, considering Dr. Fortun herself was also the one who questioned the body that was found in Carcar.
Can Paco seriously still have the energy to take his exam the next day? Also, even if it takes only one hour to move from Cebu to Manila, can Paco have the energy to rape someone? Going back and forth from the airport is no easy hassle. Paco would need to pass through security before he could even meet up with the others. Also, going from Mactan to Ayala would be a long distance. Given the year, could Paco even travel so fast to go to Ayala Center? Going back to the rape scenes in both movies--could Paco even carry out the crimes in like manner and not feel tired after that? Paco was a rather fat man so he'd easily get tired if he did what Davidson said they did. Stopping by Guadalupe to do initial rape and then go to Carcar, Cebu? Wouldn't that take a lot of time? Would Paco be able to enter the class on time and not get anybody suspicious? Paco would be in a huge mess if he did the crime!
Try checking out this video of the safehouse where it happened. The place was also vacant during that time. The place was too small for a group of 10 people to have a sex party. Eight men and two women wouldn't fit. Even the rooms are too small even for four and four to rape each woman in two separate rooms. In the movie Animal (2004)--the main antagonist Jako (played by the late John Regala) and his gang committed the crime in their much bigger hideout. It seems the late Federico "Toto" Natividad Jr. made the movie out of disbelief rather than for profit. If Natividad had been there during the premiere of Give Up Tomorrow--he might've confessed to why he made the film. However, Davidson insisted it happened. Dogan Gurkan, the owner of the boarding house mentioned DNA testing. Would a guilty person insist on DNA testing? This reminds me of Hubert Jeffry Webb's request for DNA testing to prove he wasn't the one who raped the late Carmela Vizconde. However, Atty. Amelita G. Tolentino turned it down. Why is DNA test usually turned down? There's something very fishy about that!
Not everyone will believe that Paco was indeed in Manila when it happened. There will be some people who, like Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni, would believe the Supreme Court all the time, even when the judges would be wrong. The movie Jacqueline Comes Home even had lawyers debating over the case. One law student said, "I believe that the Philippine justice system will never convict an innocent person!" They may have never heard of the late George Stinney Jr.--an African-American teenager who was wrongfully executed for a rape-slay case. However, even if I'm no lawyer, I'm still writing this because the case is making me ask, "What if I could be next to be accused of a crime I never did?"