"Animal" (2004): A Controversial Satire Against the Chiong Sister Case Inconsistencies [Warning: Read at Your Own Discretion]

After many years of self-studying the Chiong Sisters Case, I have written several entries on the matter. In fact, I created what I call an "almost-ever-updating" review on Give Up Tomorrow, which was a documentary that challenged my views. I was hesitant to write this review, as it involves another sensitive issue. Some time later, I wrote an entry discussing another aspect of the Chiong Case, specifically the issue of the late Federico "Toto" Natividad Jr. himself. I always thought it was an unethical issue. However, I was able to watch the film on YouTube (via a poor quality upload), and it doesn't seem that anyone from Natividad's estate is interested in fighting for the film's right to be distributed, not especially that Case Unclosed already came out in 2008, now available on GMA-7's official YouTube channel. Kara David did a meticulously good job featuring the Chiong mother, the Uy mother, and even another member of the "Run for Paco" campaign, the late Miguel "Juan" Del Gallego y Ripoll, who explained the frame-up process. 

The controversial ban of the Butakal (1999) film in 1999 and its short re-release in 2004 as Animal

It was a curious case in 1999 when the film Butakal was supposed to have a September 1999 release from what I heard, but it was banned by the MTRCB. I remember reading back in high school in a Freeman newspaper about the Butakal movie being banned. It was an opinion section of the newspaper, which featured a picture of a hand cutting away a negative, on Butakal. I couldn't remember the whole summary. It was a film starring the late John Regala as Jaco, and the two bold actresses, Pyar Mirasol and Via Veloso, who play the Tan Sisters. Now, I'd like to warn all my readers, especially female readers, that the content will be sensitive. The movie is something I wouldn't recommend. However, I decided to write this anyway because it could highlight the hypocrisy, something deeply scarier than any Halloween horror movie. I would like to say I have already read the sloppily written Supreme Court decision on the Chiong Sisters' case. That means Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni needs to really let her common sense work, assuming she has one.

Back when I was at least 14 years old, it was difficult for my teenage mind to process it. I could remember an episode in ISPUP on ABC-5 (sadly, the episodes would be hard to recover now) when the late William Nepomuceno played as Joseph Marcelo Ejercito, aka Joseph Estrada. One of the parodied scenes was the removal of Butakal from the theaters. There have been a lot of movies worse than Butakal. For the sake of female readers, I'm not going to mention the titles. However, the movies that were worse involved plots involving infidelity and adultery--which makes the banning of the film even more questionable. If my memory serves me right, the amount of lewd movies dramatically increased during Estrada's reign from 1998-2001, where his reign was cut short by an impeachment trial, and his corruption scandals!

Before Give Up Tomorrow, a film called Butakal: Sugapa sa Laman literally meaning "Male Pig: Hunger of the Flesh," was created. The movie starred the late John Regala as the main villain Jaco Lozano (who died a few years ago of liver disease), and two bold actresses, Via Veloso (Cherry Tan) and Via Veloso (Sandra Tan). At first, it seems to be just another film. There were ethical concerns because the movie was apparently made to capitalize on a recent tragedy in the guise of fiction. The film itself was attacked by both Estrada and the bereaved Chiong Family. I personally don't condone the film's existence because of how the events played so similarly to those of the Chiong Case. However, after seeing the film on YouTube only, sadly, because the film may no longer make it for legal viewing, after watching Give Up Tomorrow, it provoked my mind. 

Why did Estrada ban this film? Was it because of what is often referred to as bastos or lewdness? In the Cebuano dialect, bastos can refer to either a lack of respect towards anybody or an indecent display. As long as someone is already in indecent clothing or naked, the film was considered bastos. I took the personal risk to watch the film, so you don't have to. In this case, I'm giving away spoilers to kill any potential excitement in watching the film. Instead, let's dive into the film's plot and the casting.

Why I feel Butakal (1999) itself was actually a satire meant to attack the Regional Trial Court's decision, and the people clamoring for death (lots of spoilers coming)

As I said, I'm spoiling the contents of the film, because the film itself is a degrading film. However, I also viewed it as a satire, no matter how inappropriate. This detail makes me think that the film was indeed, the very first attempt to use media to make you ask, "How was this even possible?" Just for a start, The film itself is full of stupid logic that would fail if one were to make a realistic fiction. The film was most likely not meant to be a realistic fiction, but an R-18 satire.

Court records show that on Aug. 25, 1999, while the appeal of the accused was pending before the court, Natividad, a producer and director of Venus Films, filed with the MTRCB an application for a permit to exhibit Butakal.

The MTRCB gave the movie an “R-Strictly for Adults” rating and issued a permit on Aug. 27, 1999.

The movie was advertised in major dailies and was scheduled for public viewing starting Sept. 8, 1999 in several moviehouses in Metro Manila and Cebu City.

On Sept. 1, 1999, spouses Dionisio and Thelma Chiong and Thelma’s sister, Marichu Jimenea, convinced that the movie was a depiction of the rape-slay, wrote the MTRCB requesting that it disapprove the showing of the film.

They objected to what they had been told were the brutal and lewd depictions of the rape-slay. They claimed that the misrepresentations were aggravated by the purely commercial motive of the producers.

The Chiongs added that the case on which Butakal was based was still pending before the SC and the showing of the film was sub judice.

Immediately, Armida Siguion-Reyna, who then chaired the MTRCB, asked Natividad to submit Butakal to a special screening in the presence of the Chiongs.

Natividad readily agreed, and the special screening was held.

After the special screening, Siguion-Reyna then informed the Chiongs that the MTRCB stood by its previous approval of the movie and only a restraining order from the proper court would stop its public exhibition.

On Sept. 6, 1999, the Chiongs filed with the RTC a petition for injunction with damages with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Natividad and the MTRCB.

The Chiongs alleged that the showing of the film would inflict “grave injustice and irreparable injury” to them and the rape-slay victims.

The RTC eventually ruled in favor of the Chiongs, making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction and ordering the MTRCB to cancel the permit to show Butakal on television or in any theater.

The court said the movie was “illegal, indecently immoral and against public policy and order.”

On Sept. 7, 1999, the RTC issued a TRO enjoining Natividad from exhibiting the movie for 72 hours and set for summary hearing the extended duration of the TRO.

After three days, it issued another order extending the TRO to 20 days.

On Sept. 12, 1999, Natividad filed an omnibus motion seeking the dismissal of the main petition and the lifting of the TRO.

Natividad argued that the Chiongs failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, the court lacked jurisdiction over the issue, and that the petition itself failed to state a cause of action.

The Chiongs filed an opposition to the omnibus motion. The MTRCB, for its part, filed a manifestation, saying it merely fulfilled its mandate under Presidential Decree 1986 when it issued a permit to Natividad’s movie.

Eventually, in an order dated Sept. 21, 1999, the RTC denied Natividad’s omnibus motion and set the hearing on the Chiongs’ application for preliminary injunction.

The trial court previewed Butakal during the hearing on Sept. 23, 1999. After the screening, the Chiongs asked the court to direct the seizure of the movie’s VHS master copy for safekeeping by the MTRCB. The court outrightly denied the oral motion.

As the TRO would expire on Sept. 27, 1999 without the court resolving their urgent application for preliminary injunction, the Chiongs filed a very urgent motion to resolve the pending plea even though they were fully aware that Natividad had not yet concluded his presentation of evidence. The court denied the urgent motion.

On Sept. 27, 1999, Natividad received a letter from the MTRCB informing him that the Office of the President had directed the MTRCB chairman to designate a committee of board members to conduct a second review and determine if there was any basis for the allegations that the film contained scenes that were libelous or defamatory to the Chiong sisters and their surviving kin, and if after review, the board, in its judgment, would find basis for the complaint, to impose such penalties.

The MTRCB then recalled the permit to exhibit and directed Natividad to submit the film to a second review, but the producer-director refused. The MTRCB then asked him to surrender the master copy of the film.

After yielding the master copy of Butakal, Natividad requested that the MTRCB release it. The agency refused, explaining that the videotape of Butakal had to remain with it until after the Chiongs’ administrative case, of which the master copy was material evidence, was terminated.

That was why I raised the hypothetical question, whether or not Natividad was actually interviewed for Give Up Tomorrow. With over 400 hours of footage, it's highly possible he was interviewed by Marty Collins and Marty Syjuco. My personal opinion on the matter was that Natividad chose to distance himself based on a well-calculated move. Natividad had received so much criticism at that time. People were clamoring for blood. Natividad's open involvement with Give Up Tomorrow could paint him in a negative light. In fact, it's possible Natividad joined the Run for Paco in 2005, but lay low, as he was still facing severe backlashes from the Chiongs, not from the Larrañaga camp.

Thankfully, Natividads satire was no longer needed. Case Unclosed featured the Chiong Sisters' case in one of its episodes in 2008, hosted by Kara David. I only saw the documentary on YouTube, more than a decade after the original episode was aired on GMA-7. Watching the 30-minute video after watching Give Up Tomorrow was an insightful thing. It featured the irregularities that Give Up Tomorrow built on. In fact, this was one of the many things featured:

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

This was a diagram presented in Case Unclosed. It shows that even two innocent bystanders got involved. Give Up Tomorrow didn't feature the driver and the conductor, nor did Case Unclosed. I felt it was a weakness not to feature the unjust arrest of the driver and conductor. My only hunch at that time was that both of them were either (1) directly affiliated with the Southwestern University owned by the Aznars, or (2) had already performed several tasks for the SWU. Until now, one may never be aware of who Rowen Adlawa was, nor Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag, who were practically not known until the Chiong Sisters Case happened!

The film Butakal was obviously fictional and not meant to be a biopic of the Chiong Sisters' case, unlike Jacqueline Comes Home (more spoilers, as the film events will be discussed) 

It's time for us to discuss another important aspect of the film. It's all about the differences between plots. In fact, I could start highlighting one by one some incredible moments that were probably ignored in the film:

1. The main antagonist, Jaco Lozano, was the only child of his mother, Mrs. Lozano (played by Caridad Sanchez). It should be noted that while John was indeed kind of fat, the "main antagonist" of the Chiong case, Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga, was actually much fatter, and not known to be athletic or even competent. Paco's failed kidnapping attempt (if ever) would prove that he lacked the genuine mind to carry out such a scheme!
2. It should be noted that the physical frames of the co-accused, including Davidson Valiente Rusia were much more frail. The Butakal movie purposely gave us incredibly muscular actors such as Gardo Versoza (Ferdie, the Rusia counterpart), Mike Castillo, Patrick Dela Rosa and Edgar Mande. This is a stark contrast to the people who allegedly committed the crime. 
3. More importantly, the Tan sisters, Cherry and Sandra, belonged to a family in Samar, not in Cebu. It should be noted that the Tan sisters had one younger brother, and they were only three in the family. This is a different structure from the actual Chiong sisters.

The movie has some shock value. It had the distasteful beginning where Jaco and his men are raping a waitress. The movie portrays Jaco and his men as so powerful because of their condoning parents. Mrs. Lozano was shown to be the opposite of Margarita Gonzalez-Larranaga, Paco's mother. Paco's mother admitted openly in Give Up Tomorrow that her son had a bad reputation for getting into trouble. Atty. Florencio Villarin admitted in Case Unclosed that Paco was linked ot the case, because of a failed kidnapping attempt. It was also proven that Josman Aznar had a packet of shabu. Josman may have become a ticking time bomb, because should Aznar "sing his song" by revealing the suppliers, it could jeopardize the whole operation. Not to mention, the Chiong sisters disappeared nearly without a trace on July 16, 1997, when the late Dionisio Chiong was supposed to testify against a certain someone, whose name wasn't mentioned. 

What truly made me laugh was that I never noticed the naming scheme. Again, I'm not going to give the movie synopsis entirely in chronological order. My purpose to focus on the inconsistencies of the court decisions, instead of a full-out movie review!

The Tan Sisters' naming: random names or purposely named that way?

The sisters were named Cherry Tan and Sandra Tan. What I failed to realize is this possible naming scheme:

1. Cherry Tan sounds suspiciously similar to Cheryl Jimenea, a sister of Thelma Jimenea-Chiong, and a close friend of Estrada.
2. Sandra Tan sounds suspiciously similar to Atty. Sandy Coronel is the lead defense for Paco himself. The real name of Sandy is actually Sandra Marie Olaso Coronel.

Were these two meant to be stand-ins for the missing (and presumably late) sisters, Jacqueline Chiong and Marijoy Chiong? The movie events may explain that these names may not be mere random choices, but were probably meant to deliver a chilling truth. Cherry would represent Jacqueline, who actually survived to tell the tale (more on that later). Meanwhile, Sandra represents Marijoy, the one who was said to be the body in Carcar. However, even the body in Carcar was already questioned whether it was truly Marijoy or not. The movie actually had the Tan parents immediately recognize the body. In Case Unclosed, the reality was that Mrs. Chiong didn't immediately identify the body, even expressing her disbelief, "That's not my daughter's body. If you want it, you can get it!" in Tagalog.

Naming the sisters "Cherry and Sandra" was most likely not meant to make fun of the Chiong Sisters. Instead, it was the verdict. One can see that the film has some even bigger liberties, because it's never meant to be a Chiong Sisters biopic. Instead, it was a satire prepared by someone who was presuambly angry with how the events unfolded! It took me some time to notice this was never a coincidence! Instead, Cherry Tan and Sandra Tan were named after two crucial figures.

The movie added another layer of villainy for Jaco. The villain Jaco's name, almost sounds like a combination of Joke and Paco. It might be a delibrate jab that the whole trial was a bad joke, that it wasn't even funny! One added scene not taken from David's narrative was Paco shooting Marijoy. However, Jaco, being a caricature of Paco, and an obvious nod to how the whole testimonial was a bad joke, shot Sandra Tan dead. Sandra was begging for Jaco not to shoot her, but he shot her anyway. Jaco was presented as a jilted suitor towards Sandra in Butakal. It could be a representation of people (or even authority figures) to beg Atty. Coronel to cease and desist, and let Paco be convicted. But Atty. Coronel knew that Paco was innocent, based on evidence. The courtroom rejected all the evidences, such as the photos, and the late Judge Martin Ocampo, presumably under pressure, rejected the evidences! Talk about Atty. Coronel's evidence being shot down, in favor of a dumb narrative! Jaco is that dumb narrative personified!

Rappler

What fascinated me more was how Cherry survived the incident. Watching Give Up Tomorrow replayed that infamous moment (above) that was removed from the problematic film Jacqueline Comes Home. That's why when Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni recommended I watch Jacqueline Comes Home, I gave her a HaHa reaction, because she's too emotionally charged and seems to believe that the Supreme Court will always be right. The line Jacqueline Comes Home having one of the lawyers say, "I trust that the Philippine courts will never condemn an innocent person!" How misguided can you be when there are a lot of courts in the world, today, charged with injustice! 

The case happened with just one body found. However, as mentioned earlier, the body may have not even been Marijoy! A discrepancy of four inches is something that may not happen during the decay. In fact, it was just a matter of two days, which may be why my assertion that the body belonged to Marijoy, may have been wrong! I believed in Paco's innocence ever since I saw Give Up Tomorrow, even without giving up on the idea the body wasn't Marijoy. The defense experts were tasked with proving that the body in the ravine, wasn't Marijoy, given the height difference! However, the judge deemed the body's identity irrelevant, which adds a serious problem! 

During the trial, one can see the conclusion that Judge Ocampo gave a very mixed verdict. Ocampo said, "You don't know the pressure I'm under." Judge Ocampo was under immense presure, which may explain why he fell asleep in court. Judge Ocampo was someone who probably suffered sleepless nights. After that, the contrast came in. The Chiong 7 and their loved ones, all acted with dignity, even after the whole joke of a regional trial, ended. However, the infamous tantrums of Mrs. Chiong together with her sister Cheryl Jimenea, and if I'm not wrong, there was another sister named Marichu Jimenea, who broke into tantrums. These people wanted the death penalty for the Chiong 7!

What can be noteworthy was that Cheryl started to scream about how the court failed to give justice, and that Jacqueline was missing. The Give Up Tomorrow documentary featured another scene that should've remained in Jacqueline Comes Home. Cheryl mentioned that Jacqueline is still missing. There was a scene where Cheryl lost her temper in the news, saying that someone was channeling Jacqueline's spirit, which was probably the inspiration of the creative liberty in Jacqueline Comes Home, where Mrs. Chiong (acted by Alma Moreno, who I find to be downright annoying) hired a medium to contact her dead daughters. People screaming out for death, even with David's really inconsistent storytelling with a lot of absurdities!

In Butakal, the "dundundun" moment finally came in. Cherry survived the incident. There was no time stamp whatsoever. All that was known was that Cherry was found, she was surviving, and she was in the ICU. It made no sense whatsoever for Cherry to just enter the courtroom without medical aid. Can a person who survived rape and near death, enter the courtroom just like that? Cheryl entered, no testimony was given (presumably to cut time), and it perfectly corrobrated with Ferdie's testimony. By the way, it should be noted that Ferdie's testimony wasn't robotic but heartfelt, in contrast to Rusia! It should also be interesting that after Cherry sat down at the witness bench, there's no narrative given, only a quick cut to where the Tan 7 are condemned to lethal injection. The Tan 7 threw out tantrums akin to Mrs. Chiong and Cheryl. In reality, The Chiong 7 displayed dignity of innocence, and Paco was confident very time he affirmed he was innocent.

It's pretty much a reverse of what happened in real life. Mrs. Chiong lost her temper with some of her companions. Jaco and his gang lost their composure, and the parents also acted the same way. However, the real court case had it where Mrs. Chiong and Cheryl publicly lost her temper. It seems naming the surviving sister Cheryl was a deliberate jab at Cheryl trying to call Jacqueline's spirit, probably hoping the ghost would show up, to provide evidence. It seemed Natividad's decision to spare Cheryl from death and make her "magically well" was almost like saying, "Rusia's narrative with the witnesses is only believable if Jacqueline showed up healthy and well to testify that she was indeed a victim." 

Butakal's final scene was also creepy. We have Cherry with her parents and younger brother, visiting the grave of their late sister Sandra. We see that Ferdie was freed. In real life, David was freed based on a lie. 

The way the criminal events that happened to the Tan sisters in Butakal have some scenes that make me question the Supreme Court decision even more

I've been using Gemini AI to at least try to cut through the logical inconsistencies, or at least help bring out my suspicions. The movie Butakal highlighted what may be the most absurd things Rusia said. Thankfully, the inept Supreme Court decision is still available online. In the film, Jaco himself never leaves Samar for Manila. Instead, Jaco is already known as the notorious bad boy of Samar in the film. The film portrays Jaco as the big bad "untouchable" bad boy of Samar, because of the influence of his condoning single mother. Junior Sanchez, the Josman counterpart, was known to be using shabu, and has a bad relationship with his estranged father.

As I was looking into the film's narrative, certain events like the Vizconde Massacre, the unconfirmed student kidnapping allegedly done by Paco, or the scuffle at the parking lot, are mentioned. As I like to say, it's amazing that the Larrañaga family never filed a motion against Natividad, but the Chiongs. The Osmeña powers probably knew that if they did, they would've further fueled the speculation that Paco was indeed guilty of such a major crime! As I looked into the Supreme Court decision, there were a lot of absurdities in David's narrative. It would be a productive move to highlight them, especially in terms of logical absurdity. Since Jaco never had a scene where he moved from Manila to Samar just to do the crime (which Natividad purposely cut off for valid cost-cutting reasons), presumably, to say that Paco would need to be in Cebu all the time, to allow Paco to do what Jaco did! However, it also created the scenario that for Paco to do what he did, he would have to be in Cebu all the time, when Paco was studying in Manila, during the time of the crime!

The way the film unfolded can be full of unintended laughs or perhaps intended laughs. In fact, the film presented Jaco as some "invincible supervillain" with plot armor. Jaco only fell under the power of the writer. In real life, several of Jaco's crimes would've already been foiled too many times. I was using Gemini AI to try to help me narrow down my thoughts into common-sense thinking, which is barely taught in school! The film also put in some "smart measures" that would've solved some scenes like "pronto".

The Davidson Rusia stand-in, namely Ferdie

Now, let's think about the movie's crime scenes. Just a warning to readers--this is the part where I read at your own discretion. This is where I voluntarily compromised myself. The claim that David was actually recruited in Cebu Plaza (now Marco Polo) is already illogical in itself. Cebu Plaza is such a high-profile place, which makes this laughable:

Or, July 15, 1997, while Rusia was loafing around at the Cebu Plaza Hotel, Cebu City, Rowen approached him and arranged that they meet the following day at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.[18] When they saw each other the next day, Rowen told him to stay put at the Ayala Mall because they would have a "big happening" in the evening. All the while, he thought that Rowen's "big happening" meant group partying or scrounging. He thus lingered at the Ayala Mall until the appointed time came.[19]

Back before Cebu Plaza was Marco Polo, it was already a place known for its tight security. Why would a low-level thug loiter in that place? Wouldn't it make more sense if David loitered in places like anywhere in the downtown of Cebu, like Junquera, for example? Junquera is a place known for its criminal activity. Lodging houses in Cebu are the ideal places where someone can do recruitment. I've seen recruitment places. For example, a lot of reports can already be heard that criminals get caught in lodging houses. Cebu Plaza isn't the ideal place for known bad boys to hang out in, nor would it be the ideal place for recruitment. A criminal mastermind will prefer to use places like dirty, unkempt lodging houses in Cebu, no matter how stinky they are, to be a good place to recruit or meet people! 

As I looked into David's situation, the whole narrative goes even dumber and dumber. In fact, the movie later presented a situation where Ferdie was locked in with all his cellmates after he surrendered. It's an illogical move, given that Ferdie surrendered willingly. It would've been better to lock Ferdie away with the others. 

It should be noted that Ferdie had a more remorseful, heartfelt confession. It was too good to be true, in contrast to David's nearly robotic recollection. The documentary Give Up Tomorrow reveals that David was actually tortured. One must wonder who this anonymous figure is who has pulled the strings and caused the Chiong Sisters to disappear. The druglord was never named for obvious reasons, such as to protect the filmmakers, or that this druglord must've been very dangerous! 

It also makes Ferdie as a state witness hard to believe. For one, the "hero" Sgt. Davide, was acted by Brando Legaspi. Davide here, not Hilario Davide Jr., was actually the placeholder for Pabro Labra II. It should be noted that, based on the arrests, one of the Tan 7 was actually tortured. In reality, torture doesn't work to get answers. History has documented how events like the infamous Spanish Inquisition or wartime trials show that tortured victims, because of a great deal of pain, will either lie to avoid the torture or endure the torture rather than give up the truth! Ferdie participated in all those crimes. Ferdie could plead guilty, but he had to be in jail.

As stated earlier, Ferdie was released after the trial. However, it's actually dangerous in real life, to do so. What was interestin,g as I mentioned, was that the Tan family was brooding over the grave, at the fact that their loved one, Sandra, was never returning. This is almost a chilling similarity to what happened to the evidence, Atty. Coronel, also named Sandra, had worked so hard but was dismissed outright. The rules of fair trial were ignored. Like Atty. Coronel's work, Sandra lays dead, while Ferdie is freed. In real life, Ferdie should've spent some time in prison, but under different conditions because he pleaded guilty! 

An analysis of the initial sex party in David's narrative vs. how Butakal managed to "fix it" 

In the 1990s, people may remember the Pierce Brosnan James Bond films. As I was watching Butakal, I realized Jaco's schemes are far from subtle. The only thing that protected Jaco was the plot armor or the incredibly absurd amounts of money that the gang supposedly had to cover things up. The Supreme Court decision itself defied logic. In fact, one needs to note the sequence of events that Butakal may have highlighted for the absurdity. For a start, we need to look at the weather patterns:

On the night of July 16, 1997, sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong, who lived in Cebu City, failed to come home on the expected time. It was raining hard and Mrs. Thelma Chiong thought her daughters were simply having difficulty getting a ride. Thus, she instructed her sons, Bruce and Dennis, to fetch their sisters. They returned home without Marijoy and Jacqueline. Mrs. Chiong was not able to sleep that night. Immediately, at 5:00 o'clock in the morning, her entire family started the search for her daughters, but there was no trace of them. Thus, the family sought the assistance of the police who continued the search. But still, they could not find Marijoy and Jacqueline.[9]

Butakal included the raining part at the waiting shed, where the Tan sisters, Cheryl and Sandra, were waiting at the shed. We need to consider that July in Cebu hits the rainy season. I couldn't determine how long the rains lasted. However, one thing is certain that roads will be so wet and mud is certain. In fact, it makes this whole claim even feel more preposterous:

At Fuente Osmeña, Josman parked the car near a Mercury Drug Store and urged Rusia to inquire if a van that was parked nearby was for hire. A man who was around replied "no" so the group immediately left. The two cars stopped again near Park Place Hotel where Rusia negotiated to hire a van. But no van was available. Thus, the cars sped to a house in Guadalupe, Cebu City known as the safehouse of the "Jozman Aznar Group" Thereupon, Larrañaga, James Anthony and James Andrew got out of the red car.

We need to think that it was raining. Why would any criminal, in their right mind, be speeding in the rain? In reality, Paco and his gang, if they kidnapped the Chiongs and had to ask for a van, that's a pretty dead giveaway. Another thing worth noting is that the cars speeding to Guadalupe would've already caused the operation to bungle. The cars were overloaded. Speeding over there would be a disastrous decision. Now, if we look at another angle, namely the "safehouse" in Guadalupe!

Whether or not Dogan Gurkan was an associate of the Aznars isn't explicitly stated. However, even if Gurkan here was an associate of the Aznars, it doesn't change the fact that, looking at this video, the place was ridiculously too small. Natividad as a director, probably knew that filming a rape scene in a set meant to simulate the boarding house, would be hard, if not impossible. The solution was to build Jaco and his gang their own isolated headquarters, at some abandoned warehouse. Filming a rape scene involving eight men and two women, in a crammed boarding house, would've probably never worked. 

The film offered some "fixes" which probably mocked Rusia's testimony. This one made me laugh:

Larrañaga, James Anthony and Rowen brought Marijoy to one of the rooms, while Rusia and Josman led Jacqueline to another room. Josman then told Rusia to step out so Rusia stayed at the living room with James Andrew. They remained in the house for fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes. At that time, Rusia could hear Larrañaga, James Anthony, and Rowen giggling inside the room.

Butakal spared no moment and got the David stand-in, Ferdie, to participate in the horrible act of rape. The warehouse was indeed big enough, with two different rooms that were spacious enough. Natividiad probably discussed the absurdity of filming in a set meant to mimic a boarding house. The whole rape party was filmed, which I believe wasn't easy to film. David being told to "step out" just feels so stupid, which was probably scripted, so he would look like he was the least guilty.

The ravine rape scene would defy common sense, given the weather conditions

Now, we move to the most distasteful part of the film. It wasn't easy filming the rape scene. David's Rusia. Just reading this makes me think a rainy weather or the aftermath of it, allowed the rape to happen:

From the evidence of the prosecution, there is no doubt that all the appellants conspired in the commission of the crimes charged. Their concerted actions point to their joint purpose and community of intent. Well settled is the rule that in conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint design and community of interest.[144] Otherwise stated, it may be shown by the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.[145] Appellants' actions showed that they have the same objective to kidnap and detain the Chiong sisters. Rowen and Josman grabbed Marijoy and Jacqueline from the vicinity of Ayala Center. Larrañaga, James Andrew and James Anthony who were riding a red car served as back-up of Rowen and Josman. Together in a convoy, they proceeded to Fuente Osmeña to hire a van, and thereafter, to the safehouse of the "Jozman Aznar Group" in Guadalupe, Cebu where they initially molested Marijoy and Jacqueline. They headed to the South Bus Terminal where they hired the white van driven by Alberto, with Ariel as the conductor. Except for James Andrew who drove the white car, all appellants boarded the white van where they held Marijoy and Jacqueline captive. In the van, James Anthony taped their mouths and Rowen handcuffed them together. They drank and had a pot session at Tan-awan. They encircled Jacqueline and ordered her to dance, pushing her and ripping her clothes in the process. Meanwhile, Larrañaga raped Marijoy, followed by Rowen, James Anthony, Alberto, and Ariel. On other hand, Josman and James Andrew raped Jacqueline. Upon Josman's order, Rowen and Ariel led Marijoy to the cliff and pushed her. After leaving Tan-awan, they taunted Jacqueline to run for her life. And when Rusia got off from the van near Ayala Center, the appellants jointly headed back to Cebu City.

Not to mention, this also raised more questions about whether or not it was possible to even stop by for barbecue and rum:

Thereafter, the group brought Marijoy and Jacqueline back to the white car. Then the two cars headed to the South Bus Terminal where they were able to hire a white van driven by Alberto. Ariel was the conductor. James Andrew drove the white car, while the rest of the group boarded the van. They traveled towards south of Cebu City, leaving the red car at the South Bus Terminal.

Inside the van, Marijoy and Jacqueline were slowly gaining strength.  James Anthony taped their mouths anew and Rowen handcuffed them-together.  Along the way, the van and the white car stopped by a barbeque store.  Rowen got off the van and bought barbeque and Tanduay rhum. They proceeded to Tan-awan.[24] Then they parked their vehicles near a precipice[25] where they drank and had a pot session. Later, they pulled Jacqueline out of the van and told her to dance as they encircled her. She was pushed from one end of the circle to the other, ripping her clothes in the process. Meanwhile, Josman told Larrañaga to start raping Marijoy who was left inside the van. The latter did as told and after fifteen minutes emerged from the van saying, "who wants next?” Rowen went in, followed by James Anthony, Alberto, the driver, and Ariel, the conductor. Each spent a few minutes inside the van and afterwards came out smiling.[26] 

This, of course, made me go even crazier that they wouldn't doubt Rusia's testimony, based on dubious witnesses:

But, more importantly, what makes Rusia's testimony worthy of belief is the marked compatibility between such testimony and the physical evidence. Physical evidence is an evidence of the highest order. It speaks eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[112] The presence of Marijoy's ravished body in a deep ravine at Tan-awan, Carcar with tape on her mouth and handcuffs on her wrists certainly bolstered Rusia's testimony on what actually took place from Ayala Center to Tan-awan. Indeed, the details he supplied to the trial court were of such nature and quality that only a witness who actually saw the commission of the crimes could furnish. What is more, his testimony was corroborated by several other witnesses who saw incidents of what he narrated, thus: (1) Rolando Dacillo and Mario Minoza saw Jacqueline's two failed attempts to escape from appellants; (2) Alfredo Duarte saw Rowen when he bought barbeque and Tanduay at Nene's Store while the white van, driven by Alfredo Caño, was waiting on the side of the road and he heard voices of "quarreling male and female" emanating from the van; (3) Manuel Camingao testified on the presence of Larrañaga and Josman at Tan-awan, Carcar at dawn of July 17, 1997; and lastly, (4) Benjamin Molina and Miguel Vergara recognized Rowen as the person who inquired from them where he could find a vehicle for hire, on the evening of July 16, 1997. All these bits and pieces of story form part of Rusia's narration. With such strong anchorage on the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, how can we brush aside Rusia's testimony? 

Sure, Alfredo allegedly saw Adlawan buy barbecue and Tanduay at Nene's Store. However, one must ask, "Where was the owner of Nene's Store?! Why was this person not asked to give their testimony in court? I'm using 'their' because I couldn't be certain of the gender of the person. Moving forward, the Butakal scene may have had to film the rape scene at a bigger location, but the film still ridiculed the notion that Rowen would "stop by and get barbecue". This is a risky move, as one Alfredo said that he heard "two voices quarreling", so why didn't he call the police? Another thing worth noting is that no criminal in the proper planning would actually stop by just to get barbecue and rhum! Also, it was late at night! Given Carcar's state in 1999 vs. in the 2000s (when I first went there), it was doubtful that there would be barbecue stores that were open for the nightlife. One must wonder what Alfredo was doing there at Nene's Store?

It also highlights some absurdity. Jaco and his villains also rented a van. The only thing that protected Jaco and his goons was plot armor, or that the film deemed them invincible until it was time to finish it. It was most likely a creative narrative by Natividad himself, to ensure that the absurdity would be addressed. A real criminal case that's carefully planned, would have the cars stolen and the license plate destroyed. The claim that David was later "brought back to Ayala" would've given off the whole scheme immediately, if it happened! One must wonder where are the receipts to prove that on a certain time, a white can was hired by someone? Paco would've probably stolen the van. In fact, one must even wonder why the company who rented the van, wasn't summoned in court!

Here's a noticeable scene. The rape scene in Butakal has at least a day, or even days, apart from where the warehouse rape party started. The location in Samar (?) was considered more spacious and dry ground. Don't tell me that the mud just "dried up so fast" in the evening, when the sun is still down! The rape scene in Butakal was filmed on a dry set, presumably because of the risks associated with a real muddy ravine. Natividad probably had no access to a green scren. Securing the site where the rape party happened would've been difficult. The timing had to be impeccable. For one, they probably wouldn't film so late at night, like David's narrative. Instead, it's highly possible that they filmed during working hours, since the scene would still be dark enough. The rape scene was filmed as intended, which was a dry condition.

After all, given a post-rain condition. one must ask could was this all possible in a rainy and/or muddy environment? 

Inside the van, Marijoy and Jacqueline were slowly gaining strength.  James Anthony taped their mouths anew and Rowen handcuffed them-together.  Along the way, the van and the white car stopped by a barbeque store.  Rowen got off the van and bought barbeque and Tanduay rhum. They proceeded to Tan-awan.[24] Then they parked their vehicles near a precipice[25] where they drank and had a pot session. Later, they pulled Jacqueline out of the van and told her to dance as they encircled her. She was pushed from one end of the circle to the other, ripping her clothes in the process. Meanwhile, Josman told Larrañaga to start raping Marijoy who was left inside the van. The latter did as told and after fifteen minutes emerged from the van saying, "who wants next?” Rowen went in, followed by James Anthony, Alberto, the driver, and Ariel, the conductor. Each spent a few minutes inside the van and afterwards came out smiling.[26]

Then they carried Marijoy out of the van, after which Josman brought Jacqueline inside the vehicle. Josman came out from the van after ten minutes, saying, "whoever wants next go ahead and hurry up." Rusia went inside the van and raped Jacqueline, followed by James Andrew. At this instance, Marijoy was to breathe her last for upon Josman's instruction, Rowen and Ariel led her to the cliff and mercilessly pushed her into the ravine[27] which was almost 150 meters deep.[28]

As for Jacqueline, she was pulled out of the van and thrown to the ground. Able to gather a bit of strength, she tried to run towards the road. The group boarded the van, followed her and made fun of her by screaming, "run some more" There was a tricycle passing by. The group brought Jacqueline inside the van. Rowen beat her until she passed out. The group then headed back to Cebu City with James Andrew driving the white car. Rusia got off from the van somewhere near the Ayala Center.[29]

The filming was probably done from 7:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Several scenes may have been filmed several days apart. The scene had to be carefully done. However, David's narrative said that they were having a pot session with alcohol. It's already a perfect recipe for disaster for several reasons. A ravine at that time of the rape would've already been subjected to very cold temperatures. Given the rainy season, the ravine would've been a very muddy place. Mixed with the drugs and alcohol, one can say that everyone who did the rape would no longer have a concentrated effort. It would be easier for me to do some difficult math problems right now than it would be for me to commit a concentrated crime where I'm under the influence of drugs and alcohol! 

Traveling to Carcar, given the 1999 context after a heavy rain, was a lot harder than today, in 2025. Butakal filmed the rape party's climax in a dry environment. To add some ridicule, it was necessary for the past to "put their clothes back on", probably because of this part of David's narrative:

There were other people who saw snippets of what Rusia had witnessed. Sheila Singson,[30] Analie Konahap[31] and Williard Redobles[32] testified that Marijoy and Jacqueline were talking to Larrañaga and Josman before they were abducted. Roland Dacillo[33] saw Jacqueline alighting and running away from a white car and that Josman went after her and grabbed her back to the car. Alfredo Duarte[34] testified that he was at the barbeque stand when Rowen bought barbeque; that Rowen asked where he could buy Tanduay; that he saw a white van and he heard therefrom voices of a male and female who seemed to be quarreling; that he also heard a cry of a woman which he could not understand because "it was as if the voice was being controlled;" and that after Rowen got his order, he boarded the white van which he recognized to be previously driven by Alberto Caño. Meanwhile, Mario Miñoza,[35] a tricycle driver plying the route of Carcar-Mantalongon, saw Jacqueline running towards Mantalongon. Her blouse was torn and her hair was disheveled. Trailing her was a white van where a very loud rock music could be heard. Manuel Camingao[36] recounted that on July 17, 1997, at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning, he saw a white van near a cliff at Tan-awan. Thinking that the passenger of the white van was throwing garbage at the cliff, he wrote its plate number (GGC-491) on the side of his tricycle.[37] 

Wasn't it that Jacqueline's clothes were torn off? How can Jacqueline still be running away with a torn blouse (and pants) if her clothes were torn off? Not to mention, even her mother, Mrs. Chiong, admitted that Jacqueline couldn't run far because her grade was 500. Basically, Jacqueline couldn't run far! This information is taken from the Case Unclosed episode on the Chiong Sisters. Jacqueline would've lost her glasses if she were ever raped. In short, Jacqueline would've probably been easily stopped, making it easy for the Chiong 7, to get rid of the body. However, again, given the muddy environment, I don't think anyone in their right mind would be driving a tricycle at night. If somebody did, that person would've already fallen over, given Carcar's underdeveloped status at that time, compared to today! 

The fact that the cast put their "clothes back on" is a narrative that was probably meant to mock the tricycle driver's testimony. It was a convenient way. It was probably also done so everyone can rest for the next day, with their clothes on. However, it seemed like the whole scene was filmed just to make fun of Mario's testimony. What was missing though was someone who wrote down the number. It was also 5:00 in the morning, which meant it was probably still kind of dark for Manuel Camingao to see the plate number. In reality, it could've been any white van but hidden forces made Manuel lie! 

As that scene concluded to the escape, it should be noted that Jaco never left Samar in Butakal. It's a far cry from Paco who was in Manila, only came to Cebu on July 17, 2025, after the incident happened--the records were ignored for a more emotional narrative. After all, the adjustments Nativadad made such as the creation of a "Jaco HQ" and filming on dry ground for hte ravine, were actually born out of necessity, not simply artistic choice. Natividad probably wanted to make a seemless transition between the warehouse rape and the ravine. However, Natividad may have seemingly decided to put a day apart, to add the question, "Could the gang have done all that in one sitting?"

The fact that Jaco never left Samar in Butakal allowed his downfall to be easier. Of course, it was laughable that Sgt. Davide got information from just hearsay, and the crooks fell down just like that. However, the reality was, criminal law is far more complicated. The unrealistic portions probably were meant to mock people's demand for instant justice. The unrealistic turn of events were meant to be nothing more than a mock against the trial of the decade, which was actually the mistrial of the decade.