|
From
the affidavit
of Dionisio Chiong, the father of the missing girls, one will note that it
appears to have been antedated from September 23, 1997 to July 23,1997. On the heading of the above document, one will note the erasure made on the month, “of July 1997”.
On items 8 and 9: one can notice the statements were changed from past
tense to future tense. The Chiong sisters’ birthdays were on the first
week of September. Since the affidavit appears to have been made on
September 23, 1997, the girl’s birthdays were in the present tense.
However, if the affidavit had to be antedated, their birthdays had to be
“changed” in to the future tense. Thus, on item 8, the words “She
will be” was added on top of the sentence, and “on the 9th
of September 1997 was added at the end of the
sentence. This affidavit must have been made to give the motive to the three main characters “chosen” by the police to play the villains in their solution to the “alleged crime” to satisfy the then public outcry for blood, not to mention the instant promotions and monetary rewards being offered to solve the crime.
Items
12 to 15 of page 2 states that Paco was courting, and even threatened
Marijoy. A charge Paco completely denies. He swears to this day he has
never met any of the Chiong sisters.
. Item 24 was completely erased and replaced with an entirely new and shorter statement below it. What did the original statement say? And why was it erased in such a way, even using a pentel pen, to completely hide the original statement? Would it have prejudiced the whole affidavit? If this was an honest mistake, one would have not gone to the pains of completely eradicating it. Surely, these erasures were not made in the same day as when it was taken. Was it done in the prosecutor’s office just before the preliminary investigation? Why was this affidavit never formally presented in court? |
Items 26 and 28 connects Rowen Adlawan with the sisters, when Dionisio Chiong attested that Adlawan and his daughters were schoolmates in the University of Southern Philippines (USP) during their high school days. However, this is farthest from the truth, the high school principal of USP has issued the above certification (right page) stating that Adlawan and the Chiong sisters, both Marijoy and Jacqueline, were never together in the same school year in high school in their university. Marijoy had already graduated from high school on March 1994 when Adlawan entered the university on June of the same year. The elder sister, Jacqueline graduated two years earlier, in 1992. Adlawan also swears that he has never heard or met any of the Chiong sisters.
In Items 24 to 26, Mr. Dionisio Chiong attests that the trio had
brought home Marijoy two or three times before. This was even echoed by
Mrs. Chiong when she testified during the trial.
Why didn’t Mr. Chiong himself testify in court? Remember he knew
more things about the case than Mrs. Chiong. He was said to have arrived
late to pick up his daughters in Ayala on the night of the abduction. Was
it because he was afraid he will be asked about the many erasures in his
affidavit that he will not be able to justify?
Mrs. Thelma Chiong testified in court that Rowen Adlawan was
pointed to her by Marijoy in a school activity in 1993. What was Adlawan
doing in a USP school activity in 1993 when he was not even enrolled there
until June of 1994?
She further testified that the trio brought home Marijoy from
school 2 or 3 times between January and March 20 of 1994.
If true, then Paco would have been only 16 years old and was in the
lower levels of high school in
Don Bosco is a good distance from USP and Paco was always brought home and
picked up from school by the family driver.
Furthermore, Mrs. Chiong in order to implicate Paco further, echoed
Mr. Chiong’s affidavit that Paco had threatened her daughter earlier if
she will not go out with him. In fact, she added this happened a month
before the alleged abduction of their daughters. That would put the
incident around the 16th of June, 1997. But Paco was already
studying in A few days after the girls were abducted, Mr. and Mrs. Chiong, when asked by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) the basic questions, like who were the friends or suitors of their daughters, she mentioned only the then present boy friend of Marijoy from Tacloban City. She never ever mentioned Paco Larrañaga nor any of the other seven accused. Please see also Part 6 of this website.
Why did she not even mention the name of Paco when after all Paco had
threatened Marijoy a month earlier, as she testified? How could she have
forgotten so quickly about that threat?
Also, Mrs. Chiong, in an interview with Malou Guanzon, said that he
did not know Paco before the incident; she also said the rape could not
have happened in the Guadalupe house because there were many neighbors
around. Why
the sudden turn-around?
The Uy brothers, although were
in the same school as the Chiong sisters, but in the elementary levels,
were not included in this affidavit. Why? Was it because they were not
included in the original “casting” of what appears to be a police
drama?
.
.
In fact, in all the affidavits
of the prosecution witnesses “gathered” by the police and presented in
court, the names or participation of the Uy brothers in the alleged crime
were never even mentioned. Not even as John Does. It appeared that the
police keep on adding to their “script” as they went along trying to
implicate more fall guys.
Remember, about a month after
the daughters were abducted, the then Both Uy brothers, in spite their being in the same school as the Chiong sisters, although different school levels, swear they never met or heard of the Chiong sisters. In the last page of this affidavit, one will clearly note the change of dates from 23rd day of "September" to "July". Also this time they did not use a typewriter anymore. Did they forget to do this change during the earlier changes?
Why
the change of date then, from September 23, 1997 to July 23, 1997? If one
may recall, the police started trying to arrest Larrañaga in |
