Did Howie Severino present the documentary objectively? Explain your answer.

Yes. Howie Severino ensured that all the arguments he presented came with a
source. He chronologically stated Luna’s adventure and he was able to deliver the
documentary without expressing his thoughts and dispensing bias judgement.
Likewise, in presenting the documentary, he did not come after the fame and
achievements of Juan Luna, but rather he spilled Luna’s stinks and the hilarious
crime he committed through the stories of Ongpin and de Tavera. It was indeed a
very informative, unbiased, and honest documentary.

Why did Constancio Ongpin and Mara Pardo de Tavera had different
interpretation about the same event? Based on the sources they presented who
is more convincing among the two? Why?

Probably, they did not have the same interpretation because they came from the
opposite sides. Seemingly, both tried to defend their predecessors by their stories
as much as they can. Ongpin says that it was an accident while Mara remarks that
it was intentional. However, based on the sources they have presented, I found
Mara’s statement more convincing because Ongpin just based his story from
research and it looks biased while Mara was able to present written evidences
that Luna killed his wife and mother-in-law.

Jose Marco became the most successful conmanssful conmanssful conmanssful

conmanssful conmanssful conmanssful conmanssful conmanssful conmanssful
conmanssful conmanssful conmanssful conmanssful conmanssful conman