Degrees of Jimenea and the Supreme Court of the Philippines' Decision on the Chiong Case

It's easy to say that the film Give Up Tomorrow is biased, because the producer, Marty Syjuco, is a brother of Mimi Larrañaga-Syjuco's husband, Miguel Syjuco (read here). A statement from Marty himself would actually confess to it:

I first met Paco at my brother's wedding to Mimi, Paco's older sister. Eight years younger than I, he was just a big, overweight kid, and I didn't pay him much attention. Later, when I heard about his arrest and trial, I went on with my life. Part of me figured the courts would sort it out. Another part was so inured to the injustice and corruption that form the background noise of the Philippines, that I, like most Filipinos, was hobbled by fatalism.

After moving to New York and working in film distribution, I began to crave something more meaningful and creative. When Paco's sentence was elevated to death, and I saw the letter from the 35 "unheard witnesses," I knew I was at a crossroads. My own mother had seen Paco in Manila — 300 miles from the scene of the crime — on the day of the murders and had been denied the right to testify in court and corroborate his alibi.

I know some will question my objectivity and intent because Paco is my brother-in-law, but that relationship gave me inside access and perspective. It also opened my eyes to a part of the Philippines that, as one of its beneficiaries, I had ignored.

My family members are mestizos, a group that traditionally benefits from endemic corruption and cronyism. Educated in Canada and the United States, I had lived in a gated community in the Philippines, and I had been naively and willfully ignorant of the poverty all around me — blind even to the thousands of street children who haunt our cities. My clan was well protected by race, political connections and wealth from the worst aspects of our country's deeply flawed system.

It was precisely my comfort in this role, and my perspectives as a political and familial insider, that made me particularly suited — and obligated — to act in Paco's case. I had left the Philippines, but it lived inside me. And I knew I had to return. I love the country and have friends and family there, but I have grown to abhor the fatalism that allows people to turn away from injustice, and that helps the elite control the poor and uneducated.

But even for the elite, the country's poorly paid and ill-trained police are a persistent threat — to be bribed as a first resort, and allowed to escape if that fails. Under political pressure to solve crimes, they commonly charge any vaguely likely suspect. I strongly believe that most of the Philippines' prisoners have been denied due process or are innocent — or both, as we found in Paco's case — and that injustice is facilitated by the media. Once I had believed what I read and saw, but first-hand knowledge made me question so many of my birthright preconceptions and opened not only a sea of skepticism, but an ocean of hope.

Paco Larrañaga is just one among many. And the Philippines is not alone in failing to build the trappings of democracy, including elections, on a solid foundation of impartial institutions, such as independent courts. There are thousands of Pacos around the world, from Egypt to the United States. We are hoping that this film will make not only Filipinos, but people of all nationalities, sit up, pay attention and act.

In short, Marty barely knew Paco. It's easy to say, "Well, it was made by a relative of Paco." Even a lawyer I ran into on social media, called Marty, Paco's cousin. Come on, get the facts straight! As I looked into it, we need to review the several degrees of Jimenea involved in the Chiong Sisters' case. As Michael Collins called it, this would be using one's connection to try and get justice.

The degrees of Jimenea that need to be brought up

I believe that both Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong and Marijoy Jimenea Chiong are truly dead. If the woman found in Carcar wasn't Marijoy then the two sisters may be the victims of a double no-body murder case (read here). Please be reminded that Debbie Jane Chiong-Sia has always been Debbie, she was still in elementary when the two sisters went missing. The case somehow moved because two days later, a body alleged to be Marijoy's, was found. It was always shocking to know that Paco was innocent of that specific crime. A friend (I will not mention his name) was also with Paco in Manila, on that same night the crime happened! No person can be in two places at once! However, the verdict came in anyway because of a bad combination of a demand for justice, an incompetent justice system, and people who used their connections to speed up the process.

If we look into the degrees of Jimenea, we need to take a look at the connections:

• Cheryl Salvaleon Jimenea, the sister of Thelma Jimenea-Chiong, is a close friend of Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph Estrada. Estrada was vice president when the crime happened and was president when the trial commenced. 
• Hilario G. Davide Jr. was appointed as chief justice during the Estrada presidency. Davide Jr.'s wife's birth name was Virginia Jimenea Perez.

Thelma was appointed by Estrada. Thelma then promised promotions to whoever could give justice for her daughters. Leo Lastimosa of ABS-CBN called it bad hindsight, as revealed in the documentary, Give Up Tomorrow. As the documentary goes, the colonel at that time had no choice because they received the president's orders. Isn't it both illegal and more importantly, unethical, for the president to be directly involved. I could understand if both sisters wanted justice. Cheryl was probably that close to her nieces. Estrada may have been a godparent of one of the sisters, either Jacqueline or Marijoy. Given Estrada's connection, he may have felt some pain too, and wanted justice. But we know how Estrada was during his term as president!

As revealed, the Larrañaga family went to the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Larrañagas appealed because of the constitutional violations that happened. A lot of evidence was simply dismissed. 

Photo credited to Michael Collins and Marty Syjuco

The Supreme Court could've examined this photo for crying out loud! True, Paco was what Cebuanos would call bugoy or an unruly person. Josman Aznar was arrested for drug possession and illegal possession of firearms. However, Davide was a relative of the victims. Davide may have ended up making an emotional appeal. I believe Davide may have undergone some degree of pain too when the Chiong sisters went missing. Davide may have been close to the victims. However, it's amazing that the Supreme Court of the Philippines didn't even examine the evidence against the claim that Paco did the crime.

Common sense got ignored all the way. How could Paco fly to Cebu on July 16 (and the flight is just an hour long), do the crime, and fly back to Manila, as if nothing happened? Paco being overweight would've probably had overly elevated heartbeats. Paco would still need to pass through customs, have more than an hour-long land trip to meet the alleged culprits, and do the crime. Given the descriptions, why weren't flight records even checked? Why wasn't common sense put into the equation? 

Let's say Paco really did the crime. As I mentioned, Paco was pretty overweight at that time. Paco would probably easily tire if he and the co-accused did it. Paco would've probably started to feel heartburns during the whole rape party if it happened. Can Paco really not feel tired and fly back to Manila the next day, as if nothing happened? I don't need to be a medical school graduate to find the absurdity of that happening. Wouldn't Paco need to clean himself up in a hurry before taking the next flight? I wonder why didn't the Supreme Court of the Philippines even let bare common sense lead them? Letting common sense lead them would've already given the next steps!

Would it hurt to have a DNA test for the body found in Carcar? What if there was really no closure and the body wasn't Marijoy's? Wouldn't it be a false sense of security for the victims? However, it seems that emotions took over logic. Estrada wasn't satisfied with the two reclusion perpetuas granted to the Chiong 7. Davide may have been under pressure or believing Davidson Rusia's "testimony" (read here) because he too, wanted justice. However, why deny even the DNA test? This was even in the Supreme Court final decision, which may make anyone, not just any lawyers, gape at the inconsistency:

THE IDENTITY OF THE DEAD BODY OF THE WOMAN FOUND IN TAN-AWAN, CARCAR, CEBU LAST JULY 18, 1997 WAS NEVER CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THUS THE NEED FOR ITS EXHUMATION FOR DNA TESTING;"[4]

In his supplemental motion for reconsideration dated March 25, 2004, Larrañaga submitted a separate study of Dr. Racquel Del Rosario-Fortun, Forensic Pathologist, to show that the examination conducted by the prosecution expert witnesses on the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar is inadequate.

In a similar supplemental motion for reconsideration[5], Aznar submitted to this Court the Affidavit dated February 27, 2004 of Atty. Florencio Villarin, Regional Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, Central Visayas, to show that: (1) the police investigation of this case was flawed; (2) he (Aznar) was arrested in 1997 not because of his involvement in this case but because he had in his possession a pack of shabu and firearms; and (3) David Rusia is not a credible witness.

On July 15, 2004, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment[6] praying that the four (4) motions for reconsideration be denied with finality, there being no new argument raised.  He responded to appellants' assignments of errors by exhaustively quoting portions of our challenged Decision.

In his consolidated comment[7] to Aznar's supplemental motion for reconsideration, the Solicitor General enumerated the grounds why Atty. Villarin's Affidavit should not be given consideration.  On February 15, 2005, Aznar filed a reply alleging that the Solicitor General "read out of context" certain portions of the Affidavit.  He argued that the

Affidavit only exposes the flawed investigation of the Chiong case and that, at the time of his arrest, there was no evidence against him.  On March 4, 2005, the Solicitor General filed a rejoinder stating that Aznar's reply "actually supports the undersigned counsel's (Solicitor General's) position that Atty. Villarin's Affidavit is utterly inadequate to prove his innocence or at least even acquit them on reasonable doubt," thus, "it would be useless to call for new trial on the basis of such Affidavit."  On March 29, 2005, Aznar filed a sur-rejoinder insisting that the Affidavit should be given due consideration.

Except for the motion filed by appellants Uy brothers with respect to James Andrew's alleged minority, we find all the motions bereft of merit.

At the inception, let it be emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not impose on us the obligation to discuss and rule again on the grounds relied upon by the movant which are mere reiteration of the issues previously raised and thoroughly determined and evaluated in our Decision being questioned.  In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco,[8]  we ruled that, "this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant."

The foregoing principle applies squarely to the motions filed by appellants Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Caño and Balansag, it being apparent that the points raised therein are not neoteric matters demanding new judicial determination.  They are mere rehash of the arguments set forth in their respective briefs which we already considered, weighed and resolved before we rendered the Decision sought to be reconsidered.

However, in view of the severity of the penalties for the crimes charged, we deem it necessary to stress once more our basis in convicting appellants.

The following is a prècis of the issues submitted by appellants in their motions:

This Court erred -

first, in according credence to Rusia's testimony;

second, in rejecting appellants' alibi;

third,  in  holding  that  the trial court did  not  violate  their  right    to due process when it excluded the  testimony of other defense witnesses; and

fourth, in holding that the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar was not that of Marijoy.

In deciding a criminal case, the policy of the courts is always to look at the case in its entirety.  The totality of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, averting general conclusions from isolated pieces of evidence.  This means that an appeal of a criminal case opens its entire records for review.

Again, why was request for DNA test denied? This is similar to how retired judge Amelita Tolentino denied Hubert Jeffry Webb's request for a DNA test. It was said Tolentino eyed a position at the Court of Appeals. Was it so the case could be closed and justice be met? It makes my head spin realizing that my belief that the Chiong 7 was guilty, was based on a series of lies. What I ignored at that time was that Cheryl was Thelma's sister, and that Davide was related by marriage to Thelma. So who's got tighter connections now? 

It should be noted that the Chiong Couple also fought against the late Federico "Toto"Natividad Jr. at that time (read here). It was all about the exploitation film Butakal (which is an R-rated film) which was later released as Animal (2004). An amazing coincidence Paco was sentenced to death in that same year. The film Butakal had the seven suspects (who by the way, did the crime) sentenced to death. It was only because one of the Tan sisters survived and told the tale. In real life, Jacqueline was never found and never got to tell the tale. Sadly, nothing can be known of that may have happened to Jacqueline either. Estrada's backing allowed the Chiongs to combat the screening of the film, which was probably just there for some box office receipts. I can imagine if Natividad got interviewed for Give Up Tomorrow but was deemed irrelevant for the final cut. What's amazing is that Paco's parents may have never went to file a case against Natividad's film either. 

After watching the film Jacqueline Comes Home (read here)--I'm not even impressed. The film deserves bad reviews for its poorly done presentation. A lot of factual errors happened like how Thelma (acted by Alma Moreno) just calmly accepted the decision. If anybody seeks to make that awful film as evidence to convict Paco and the others for a crime they never committed, it's something. Josman Aznar's arrest was for a completely different offense. Aznar should've been out by now but he's still in jail, because of the verdict over a crime that he also never committed. The film also had some laughably naive lawyers who said, "We should trust that the Philippine justice system will never convict an innocent person." Like what? I'm amazed that some people do have that blind trust in the justice system, like that lawyer I ran into on social media. I have no intention to confront her or anything either.