POV

Community
Engagement & Education

DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
A Film by Michael Collins & Marty Syjuco

www.pbs.org/pov
 LETTERS FROM THE FILMMAKERS

DIRECTOR’S STATEMENT
Producer Marty Syjuco and I had been friends for a few years when
his older brother, Paco Larrañaga’s brother-in-law, asked for our
help. I had heard that Paco was accused of murdering two women on
the island of Cebu in the Philippines, but everyone in the family was
embarrassed to talk about it and was 100 percent sure that the
Supreme Court would overturn his death sentence.

I retained some skepticism—until I read the letter from the 35

“unheard witnesses” in the case. I was in a café on New York City’s
Lower East Side, and the letter brought me to tears. Paco was my
age, and over the previous seven years, while I had thrived, he had
waited, unjustly condemned to execution, in a horrific gang-run
prison.
Director Michael Collins
There was no way to ignore the injustice; I had a background in video
Photo courtesy of Joshua Z. Weinstein
and had long believed in film’s ability to create social change. But it
was only when I realized how passionate I had become about this
story that I felt the full power of the medium.

Passion alone does not make good cinema, though, and it has taken seven years to complete this project. Our first step was
to go to Los Angeles to interview two of the letter writers who attested to Paco’s whereabouts when the crime was
committed in 1997. They had left the Philippines, partially out of disgust over this case, but also because they felt haunted
by guilt—the same guilt we would feel if we were unable to reverse a clear and terrible injustice. At our first meeting in Los
Angeles, the two broke down and wept over their powerlessness and failure to make anyone listen. They painted a picture
of cronyism, corruption and class and race conflict in the Philippines that made us realize this injustice was only the tip of
a very deep iceberg.

In the Philippines, a few people, galvanized by the opportunity to do the right thing, supported us with housing, resources,
information and encouragement. Others held back, believing that the system was beyond reform and the risk in going
against police, presidents and drug lords was too high.

Paco, who soon will have spent half his life in prison, was reticent for other reasons: When we discussed the case and prison,
he became cold and somber. But when we talked about his pre-trial life, he was full of warmth and enthusiasm. I regret
that—because of the prison environment and Paco’s experience of media as enemy—we could not adequately capture on
film the sweetness and joy in his personality that we glimpsed, and that Paco’s friends and family saw as his essential nature.

I came to understand that we could prove Paco’s innocence over and over with the facts, but that would never be enough.
We needed not only to expose a deep and complex dynamic of corruption and injustice, but also to reveal the part of the
culture of the Philippines that is human, decent and suffering.

Michael Collins
Director, Give Up Tomorrow

|2
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 LETTERS FROM THE FILMMAKERS

PRODUCER’S STATEMENT
I first met Paco at my brother’s wedding to Mimi, Paco’s older
sister. Eight years younger than I, he was just an 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.
Producer Marty Syjuco
I know some will question my objectivity and intent because Photo courtesy of Joshua Z. Weinstein
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 from which 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.

Marty Syjuco
Producer, Give Up Tomorrow

|3
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 TABLE OF CONTENTS CREDITS

2 Letters From the Filmmakers

4 Introduction Writer

5 Potential Partners Faith Rogow, PhD

Insighters Educational Consulting
5 Key Issues
5 Using This Guide
6 Background Information Guide Producers and Background Research, POV

6 Paco Larrañaga Case Summary Eliza Licht

Vice President,
7 Philippines Country Profile
Community Engagement & Education, POV
8 Cases of Wrongful Conviction
Jamie Dobie
9 Prisoner Transfer Treaties Coordinator,
10 Media Responsibility in the Philippines Community Engagement & Education, POV

11 Selected People Featured Aubrey Gallegos

Assistant,
in Give Up Tomorrow Community Engagement & Education, POV
14 General Discussion Questions
Abby Harri
14 Discussion Prompts
Marlaina Martin
17 Taking Action Samantha Rivera
17 Resources Nicole Tsien
Interns, Community Engagement & Education, POV
19 How to Buy the Film

Design:
Rafael Jiménez
INTRODUCTION
Eyeball
This could be a fictional thriller—a who-done-it with an intriguing
Copy Editor:
cast of characters. But it is very real. In 1997, as a tropical storm
Natalie Danford
beat down on an island in the Philippines, the Chiong sisters left
work and never made it home. Paco Larrañaga, a 19-year-old
student, was arrested, tried and sentenced to death for their rape Thanks to those who reviewed this guide:
and murder, despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence.
Michael Collins and Marty Syjuco
Give Up Tomorrow documents Larrañaga’s controversial trial—one Filmmakers, Give Up Tomorrow
of the most sensational ever in the Philippines. The film’s
examination of the proceedings strips the veneer of raw emotions
to reveal shocking corruption. For more than a decade, two
grieving mothers find themselves entangled in a case that ends a
nation’s use of capital punishment but fails to free an innocent
man.

The filmmakers draw the audience into a straightforward, yet

complex, journey that examines prison conditions, coerced
confessions, hints of political favors, media sensationalism and the
boundaries of international law. Uncomfortably, viewers are left to
ponder the impact on individuals, families, communities and a
nation when a system that is supposed to deliver justice does
the opposite.

|4
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 POTENTIAL PARTNERS KEY ISSUES

Give Up Tomorrow is well suited for use in a variety of Give Up Tomorrow is an excellent tool for outreach and
settings and is especially recommended for use with: will be of special interest to people looking to explore the
following topics:
• Your local PBS station
• Groups that have discussed previous PBS and POV • Citizenship
films relating to criminal justice systems, unjust • Corruption
imprisonment or the death penalty, including • Crime/criminal justice
Presumed Guilty, Prison Town, USA and Better
• Death penalty
This World.
• Fair trials
• Groups focused on any of the issues listed in the
Key Issues section • Human rights

• High school students • International law

• Faith-based organizations and institutions • Journalism

• Cultural, art and historical organizations, • Justice

institutions and museums • Justice system
• Civic, fraternal and community groups • Law
• Academic departments and student groups at • Media literacy
colleges, universities and high schools
• Philippines
• Community organizations with a mission to
• Prison/incarceration
promote education and learning, such as your
• Spain
local library
• Wrongful convictions

USING THIS GUIDE

This guide is an invitation to dialogue. It is based on a belief in the power of human connection, designed for people
who want to use Give Up Tomorrow to engage family, friends, classmates, colleagues and communities. In contrast to
initiatives that foster debates in which participants try to convince others that they are right, this document envisions
conversations undertaken in a spirit of openness in which people try to understand one another and expand their
thinking by sharing viewpoints and listening actively.

The discussion prompts are intentionally crafted to help a wide range of audiences think more deeply about the issues
in the film. Rather than attempting to address them all, choose one or two that best meet your needs and interests. And
be sure to leave time to consider taking action. Planning next steps can help people leave the room feeling energized
and optimistic, even in instances when conversations have been difficult.

For more detailed event planning and facilitation tips, visit www.pbs.org/pov/outreach

|5
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Paco Larrañaga Case Summary
July 16, 1997 was a typical day for Give Up Tomorrow’s
subject, Paco Larrañaga. He attended culinary classes and
then enjoyed the nightlife in Manila with his classmates. The
next morning he was back at school for a day of exams.
Three hundred miles away on the island of Cebu, parents
Dionisio and Thelma Chiong were filing missing-persons
reports. Their daughters, Marijoy, 21, and Jacqueline, 23, had
disappeared while waiting for their father to give them a
ride home from work. The sisters would never be seen alive
again. A battered, blindfolded and handcuffed body was
soon discovered and identified as Marijoy. Jacqueline was
never found.
Two months later, Paco’s sister, Mimi, received a call from
her frightened brother saying that men in civilian clothes
were arresting him for the kidnap, rape and murder of both
Chiong sisters. Six other boys in Cebu were also arrested.
Although some of the boys’ names were on a list of juvenile
delinquents because of a previous altercation, there was no
evidence linking them to the crime.
The Chiong family is Chinese-Filipino. Paco is part of a
prominent mestizo political clan that includes a former
president. Beefy and tough, with a past of petty offenses,
he neatly fits the role of privileged thug—and that is how he
was cast by the frenzied media that swarmed his arrest and
trial and cheered his eventual sentence to death by lethal
injection.
Initially, Paco’s family, devout Catholics like many Filipinos,
discussed his leaving the country. But they decided he
would stay and clear his name. “We didn’t think it would go
beyond preliminary investigation because we had . . . more
than 35 witnesses . . . that said this boy was nowhere near
Cebu on July 16,” said Mimi.
As the media began painting sensational portraits of the
accused boys as drug addicts, Thelma Chiong, distraught
mother of the victims, became a sensation herself. She
claimed Paco had been dating and menacing Marijoy, an
allegation he and his sister, Mimi, strenuously denied. Mimi
began to suspect that the Chiongs were hiding something.
She was right.
It turned out that Dionisio Chiong had worked at a trucking
company owned by an alleged drug lord. At the time of his
daughters’ disappearance, Dionisio had been scheduled to
testify against the drug lord at a congressional hearing,
but then he abruptly changed his mind. Could the
murders have been ordered to ensure Dionisio’s
silence? It was later discovered that the plainclothes police
who arrested Paco were the alleged drug kingpin’s
bodyguards and that the police superintendent was a close
friend.
The story became stranger still. While Paco and the six co-
defendants languished in prison, Thelma Chiong was
appointed vice president of the Crusade Against Violence.
Her sister was the personal secretary to the newly elected
president, Joseph Estrada, who assigned four different
agencies to tackle the investigation.
Police searched the Larrañagas’ property for a link to the
crime. No such link was found, but eight months later
prosecutors announced they had a star witness. A young
prisoner named Davidson Rusia confessed that he was
among the gang sought for kidnapping, raping and
murdering the Chiong sisters. When the trial got underway,
the prosecution questioned Rusia for days, while Paco’s
counsel was given 30 minutes for cross-examination.
Thelma Chiong called Rusia “a gift from God” and even
brought the alleged double murderer birthday gifts in
prison. Rusia’s cellmates would later claim he had been
repeatedly tortured by police before confessing.
The Philippines has no jury system, so Paco’s fate rested in
the hands of the judge in the case, Martin Ocampo, who
made the defense team’s work difficult, even jailing them
for protesting his decision to throw out expert testimony
questioning the identification of Marijoy Chiong’s body.
When Paco’s fellow students and instructors took the stand
to verify his alibi, the judge cut short their testimony,
declaring that there were “too many” witnesses. Paco was
never allowed to take the stand.
Judge Martin Ocampo, who was even seen sleeping
through parts of the proceedings, took three months to
write his decision. The verdict, reached two years after the
crime, was devastating: Paco and his co-defendants were
found guilty and received two consecutive life sentences.
Under Philippine law, a guilty verdict required the death
penalty, so why did the judge rule otherwise? He admitted
there was insufficient proof that the corpse was Marijoy
Chiong’s. “You don’t know the pressure I’m under,” he told
reporters who asked if he feared for his life. Five months
later, he committed suicide.
The Chiong family was outraged that the young men had
not received the death penalty, and their ally President
Estrada asked the Department of Justice to change the
sentence. The Larrañaga family appealed to the Supreme
|6
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Court to protest the many violations of Paco’s constitu-
tional rights.
Lawyers assured the family that Paco’s case was strong. On
February 3, 2004, Paco’s mother, like millions of others,
would hear the news of the appeal on television. Her son
was not only found guilty, but now was sentenced to death
by lethal injection.
But in another twist, the court’s new verdict awakened
widespread support for the accused young men. Student
witnesses joined Catholic priest Father Reyes in organizing
a run to raise awareness around the case, and Paco's family
sought new avenues for justice. Because his father was
Spanish, Paco was also a Spanish citizen. The family
appealed to Spain for help and Amnesty International led a
nationwide campaign that generated huge momentum. In
November 2004, activists delivered a petition with nearly
300,000 signatures to the embassy of the Philippines in
Madrid.
The country’s Supreme Court, led by a chief justice related
to Thelma Chiong, refused to budge. In a final effort, Paco’s
lawyers submitted his case to the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, which called for his release.
The Spanish government asked Philippine President Gloria
Arroyo, who had replaced President Estrada following his
removal on corruption charges, to grant Paco clemency.
She vowed that Paco’s life would be saved and,
astonishingly, abolished the nation’s death penalty in June
2006. The two countries agreed that Paco would be
transferred to Spain to serve the remainder of his life
sentence. Thelma Chiong tried—but failed—to prevent the
transfer.
Paco and his family hoped that his transfer to Spain would
set him off on a path to freedom, but the Spanish prison
review board would only recommend Paco for parole if he
would admit his guilt. More than two years after his transfer
to Spain and 15 years after his arrest, Paco remains in prison
but now benefits from an additional privilege of the Spanish
penal system: Due to time already served, he is granted
occasional therapeutic leaves (a few days every month) at
the prison board’s discretion, which means he receives
permission to leave during daytime hours to study and
work. The Republic of the Philippines retains jurisdiction
over the case.
Philippines Country Profile
Location:
The Republic of the Philippines is a chain of 7,107 islands in
the western part of the Pacific Ocean, covering an area of
115,830 square miles in Southeast Asia. The country is
divided into three areas: Luzon to the north, Visayas in the
center and Mindanao to the south. Manila, the capital city
where Paco attended culinary school, is located in Luzon.
Cebu, the home of the Larrañaga and Chiong families, is
located in central Visayas. The archipelago was formed by
volcanic activity, and is mostly mountainous with areas of
coastal lowlands. With 20 active volcanoes, the Philippines
is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire and is thus prone to
seismic activity. The country’s tropical climate also makes it
susceptible to typhoons.
Population:
The Philippines has a population of 98 million (2012
estimate). More than 150 native languages and dialects are
spoken in the Philippines, and there are four principal
languages: Cebuano, spoken in Visayas; Tagalog, spoken
around Manila; Ilocano, spoken in northern Luzon; and
Maranao, spoken in Mindanao. To establish national unity,
the government promotes the use of Filipino, based on
Tagalog, as the national language, and it is taught all over
the country. English is also an official language of the
country, and many speak it as a second language. The
Philippines has one of the highest literacy rates of
developing countries, with over 93 percent of the
population over 10 years of age able to read. The gender
gap is significantly close with regard to health and
education.
Due to over 400 years of Spanish and American rule, more
than 90 percent of the population is Christian. A small
Muslim population also exists, around 4.6 percent, concen-
trated in central and western Mindanao. Some smaller
forest tribes still live in the more remote areas of Mindanao.
With a gross domestic product per capita of $2,370 in 2011,
economic growth in the Philippines has averaged 5 percent
over the past year, with a 7.6 percent growth rate in 2010,
the highest in 20 years. Since the global financial crisis and
recession, efforts have been made to develop programs
that boost infrastructure, and as a result the economy has
been relatively stable and resilient.
|7
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Government:
The Philippines is a representative democracy modeled
after the U.S. system of government. Under the 1987 consti-
tution, ratified under the Corazon Aquino administration, a
government was established with three branches—the
executive, with a president limited to one six-year term; a
bicameral legislature; and an independent judiciary. The
senate consists of 24 members who serve six-year terms;
half of them are elected every three years. The House of
Representatives is made up of 285 members, 229 of whom
represent single-member districts. Party-list represen-
tatives, or party representatives elected at large, occupy
the remaining 56 seats. Representatives serve three-year
terms and a maximum of three consecutive terms. Under
the constitution, the number of members of the House of
Representatives is limited to 250. However, a 2010 Supreme
Court ruling allows additional party members to sit in, if
they attained the required number of votes.
Some of the major issues affecting the political climate of
the country are corruption, cronyism and nepotism. There
are several families at the forefront of society, and they
hold a large share of both political power and economic
wealth. The incumbent president, Benigno Aquino III, ran on
an anti-corruption platform. He took office in June 2010.
Under his administration, a Truth Commission was
established. This body, led by former Supreme Court chief
justice Hilario Davide, Jr., was formed to investigate
charges of corruption, election rigging and human rights
abuses during the previous administration under Gloria
Arroyo. As of the end of 2011, Arroyo had been placed on
house arrest pending trial, and the chief justice she had
appointed to the Supreme Court had been impeached and
found guilty of corruption. The next presidential election is
slated for May 2016.
Justice:
The Supreme Court of the Philippines is composed of 15
justices, appointed by the president with recommendations
from the judicial and bar council. The justices serve on the
court until they reach the age of 70. Other courts include
the Court of Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan (“People’s
Advocate”), a special court for cases involving corruption
of government officials. While the Philippines has adopted
a legal framework similar to that of the United States, it has
not implemented a jury system. A judge hears the case and
issues a ruling. In Paco Larrañaga’s case, it was Judge
Martin Ocampo who heard the evidence and
adjourned the court for three months to write his
decision.
As a result of massive case backlogs and low salaries, the
legal system is fraught with inefficiencies and corruption.
Only one percent of the national budget is allocated to the
judiciary, so very often judges and lawyers become
dependent on local politicians for resources, which allows
political influence to trickle in. This culture of impunity has
made the Philippines one of the most dangerous places for
employees in the court system. Since 1999, at least 12
judges have been killed, and the perpetrators remain
unpunished.
Sources:
Election Guide. “Philippines.”
http://electionguide.org/country.php?ID=171
Freedom House. “Philippines.”
http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/philippines
Reuters. “Philippines’ Aquino Sets Up ‘Truth Commission.’” June 29,
2010.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/06/29/idINIndia-49743820100629
U.S. Department of State. “Background Note: Philippines.”
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2794.htm
The World Bank. “GDP Per Capita.”
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
The World Bank. “Philippines Overview.”
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/philippines/overview
Cases of Wrongful Conviction
Though Give Up Tomorrow highlights only one case within
the Philippine judicial system, it illuminates a larger concern
over wrongful conviction, both in the Philippines and
worldwide.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines released information
in 2004 that cited a 71.77 percent judicial error rate in
capital cases in the period from 1993 to 2004, when capital
punishment was still legal, a percentage determined by the
total number of death convictions that had been either
reversed or pardoned. During this time, 651 of 907
convicted persons were saved from lethal injection due to
wrongful conviction. In recognition of this high error rate,
the Supreme Court issued a ruling on DNA evidence that
allows post-conviction DNA testing without need of prior
court order, although it also requires that a relevant
biological sample exist and that testing be likely to result in
the reversal or modification of the conviction.
Wrongful convictions are not unique to the Philippines.
According to a report released by Columbia University
|8
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
researchers in May 2012, there have been a total of 2,061
inmate and ex-convicts exonerated of serious crimes in the
United States since 1989. Worldwide, DNA evidence has
assisted in clearing the names of hundreds of wrongfully-
convicted prisoners, many of whom were on death row or
facing other serious sentences. Use of DNA technology to
revisit past convictions has led to 297 exonerations in the
United States alone. Organizations like the Innocence
Project view this as an indicator of systemic faults in the
justice system of the United States and note that there may
be thousands in the system who were wrongfully convicted,
at least some of them impossible to exonerate because
there is no DNA evidence for their cases.
Lengthy police station stays and interrogations are just one
of many reasons for wrongful convictions, which vary
based on the particular case and country. According to the
Death Penalty Information Center, wrongful conviction in
death penalty cases was due in 45 percent of cases to
eyewitness misidentification, in 17 percent to government
misconduct, in 10 percent to “snitches,” in 9 percent to
mishandled evidence or unqualified experts, in 8 percent to
false confession and in 29 percent to other causes,
including hearsay and questionable circumstantial
evidence. (The totals add up to more than 100 percent
because in many cases there is a combination of causes at
work.)
In the United States, eyewitness misidentification was a
factor in 72 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration
cases. It has been reported by many organizations studying
this phenomenon that race may play a role, as 40 percent
of identifications are cross-racial and some studies have
shown that it may be more difficult for people to identify
someone of a race that is not their own.
Sources:
Asia Times Online. “Wrongful Conviction Puts Spotlight on Japanese
Justice.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/NF30Dh01.html
Innocence Project. “The Causes of Wrongful Conviction.”
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand
Innocence Project. “Eyewitness Identification Reform.”
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Eyewitness_
Identification_Reform.php
Innocence Project. “Facts on Post-conviction DNA Exonerations.”
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_
DNA_Exonerations.php
The Week. “25 Years of Wrongful Convictions: By the Numbers.”
http://theweek.com/article/index/228292/25-years-of-wrongful-
convictions-by-the-numbers
Prisoner Transfer Treaties
As a dual citizen of the Philippines and Spain, Paco
Larrañaga was moved to a Spanish prison under what is
known as the RP-Spain Transfer of Sentenced Persons
Agreement (TSPA). Signed on May 18, 2007 and approved
by the senates of both countries, this treaty allows foreign
prisoners to be sent to their countries of nationality to serve
out the rest of their sentences.
As of 2011, the Philippine government had established
prisoner transfer agreements with five different nations—
China, Canada, Cuba, Thailand and Spain. Though Paco’s
case is an exception, the origin of prisoner transfer treaties
is largely humanitarian—they are typically issued to protect
nationals who are incarcerated abroad under abusive and
inhumane conditions. The sentencing country (in Paco’s
case the Philippines) retains sole power over whether or not
the convicted person will be granted amnesty or pardon,
but the treaty is dependent on the cooperation of partner
nations and encourages cordial international relations. In
this case, Spain has the option to ask the Philippines for
clemency for Paco.
The RP-Spain TSPA permits transfers to be carried out only
if certain criteria are met. The sentenced person must be a
national of the state to which he or she is being transferred;
the committed offense must be criminally punishable both
in the country of offense and the country of nationality; the
sentence must be final and without other legal recourse;
and the sentenced person must have consented to the
transfer, satisfied any payment of fines and have at least
one year left to serve. In Paco Larrañaga’s case, the Chiong
family reportedly received 750,000 Philippine pesos in civil
damages from the Larrañaga family (an amount equivalent
to approximately $18,000 in 2012). Once a sentenced
person or either partner nation confirms that all of these
criteria apply, a transfer request may be submitted to the
central authority of the state holding the individual.
Prisoner transfer agreements also exist in Australia, Japan,
the Americas and several European countries. This type of
agreement made national headlines in the United States
|9
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
when three British businessmen (the so-called “NatWest
Three”) pled guilty to fraud during the 2007 Enron case and
were transferred to the United Kingdom prison system after
serving only six months of a 37-month sentence.
Records kept by the U.S. International Prison Transfer Unit
(the branch of the U.S. Department of Justice that presides
over prison transfer agreements involving the United
States) reveal that 595 foreign nationals were sent back to
their home countries from United States prisons between
2008 and 2010 and 163 Americans returned from prisons
abroad in that same time period.
Sources:
abs-cbnNEWS.com. “Larrañaga Turned Over to Spain.”
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/10/06/09/larra%C3%B1aga-
turned-over-spain
Council of Europe. “Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.”
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/112.htm
Lee-Brago, Pia. “DFA Chief Defends RP-Spain Prison Transfer Treaty.”
The Philippine Star, September 12, 2009.
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=504546&publicationSu
bCategoryId=63
Media Responsibility in the Philippines
The media’s involvement in the Chiong case seemed unjust
and biased to many observers. From the recorded re-
enactment that demonized the seven young men on trial to
news broadcasts that referred to Paco Larrañaga by
various derogatory names, media responsibility became a
point of contention for Larrañaga’s domestic and interna-
tional supporters.
In 2011, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
issued a proposal for a publication that would illustrate the
Philippine media’s sensational reporting on rape and would
recommend ethical guidelines for journalists. The proposed
publication would focus on the Chiong rape case, specif-
ically, and would cite articles published in the media outlets
that covered the case, including the Philippine Daily
Inquirer, Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, Manila Times and
the tabloids Bulgar, Tempo and Abante.
In a July 2012 opinion piece on the GMA News website,
blogger and essayist Katrina Stuart Santiago revisited the
media’s involvement in the Chiong case. She writes that
“the media saw the bad boy stereotype and sold it to us
as the truth behind, if not the premise of, this story
of crime. Certainly this was the state of media in
1997, in a grand display of gross sensationalism
and absolutely biased reportage that I’m sure any media
personality would want to deny.”
To date, much of the attention paid to media responsibility
in the Philippines has focused on journalists charged with
libel against politicians. For example, in 2005, five
journalists in Cebu were charged for publishing stories
about a mayor’s alleged involvement in a bank robbery of
nearly 100 million pesos. In 2012, a forum was organized by
the Cebu Citizens-Press Council in recognition of World
Press Freedom Day. Gabriel T. Ingles, associate justice at
the Philippine Court of Appeals, supported Justice Vicente
Mendoza’s idea of distinguishing between political and
private libel.
In June 2011, the Committee to Protect Journalists ranked
the Philippines third in its impunity index, which calculates
unsolved media killings as a percentage of each country's
population. In a 2005 report on a study of freedom of
expression and the media in the Philippines and six other
Asian countries, Article 19, an international human rights
organization that defends and promotes freedom of
expression and freedom of information worldwide, pointed
to “the failure of the Philippine mass media to provide
citizens with balanced and objective information they need
on matters such as their own rights.”
Sources:
Article 19. “Freedom of Expression and the Media in the Philippines.”
http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/philippines-
baseline-study.pdf
Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility. “Cebu Journalists Face
Libel Suit.”
http://www.cmfr-phil.org/2005/10/06/cebu-journalists-face-libel-suit/
GMA News. “The Refusal to Give Up Today.”
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/267007/opinion/the-refusal-
to-give-up-today
Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. “Reporting on Rape.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50091078/Reporting-on-Rape-Media-
Coverage-Content-Analysis
Solidarity Philippines Australia Network. “Statement on Press Freedom
in the Philippines.”
http://cpcabrisbane.org/Kasama/1999/V13n3/Press.htm
SunStar Cebu. “Forum Discusses Libel in Media.”
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/local-news/2012/05/05/forum-
discusses-libel-media-219824
|10
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Selected People Featured in Give Up Tomorrow

The Families

Paco Larrañaga Mimi, Paco’s sister Jaime, Paco’s brother-in-law (Mimi’s

husband)

Manuel and Margot, Paco’s parents Imanol, Paco’s brother Maisha, Paco’s cousin in Spain

Tatat, Paco’s aunt in Spain

Marijoy and Jacqueline Thelma and Dionisio Chiong, Cheryl Jimenea, Thelma Chiong’s sister
“Jackie” Chiong, parents of the victims
the missing girls

|11
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Selected People Featured in Give Up Tomorrow

Journalists and Television Personalities

Leo Lastimosa Suzzane Salva Teddy Locsin, Jr.

Dong Puno Solita Monsod Lucia Gomez

|12
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Selected People Featured in Give Up Tomorrow

Law Enforcement and Government Investigators

Napoleon Estilles, senior police Pablo Labra, police inspector, arresting Teresita Galanida, prosecuting attorney
superintendent and friend of the officer and winner of Cebu’s 1997
employer of Dionisio Chiong Outstanding Policeman award

Judge Martin Ocampo, trial judge

Advocates and Legal Advisors

Mike Armovit, defense attorney Sandy Coronel, defense attorney Sarah de Mas, Fair Trials International

|13
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 GENERAL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Immediately after the film, you may want to give people
a few quiet moments to reflect on what they have seen. If
the mood seems tense, you can pose a general question
and give people some time to themselves to jot down or
think about their answers before opening the discussion:
• If you could ask anyone in the film a single question,
who would it be and what would you ask him or her?
• What did you learn from this film? What insights did
it provide?
DISCUSSION PROMPTS
The Justice System
What is the role of an unbiased court and the rule of law in
a civil society? What happens when people stop trusting
the justice system? Beyond this case, can you think of
instances in which a sizable number of citizens stopped
trusting their country’s legal system? What happened as a
result?
Based on what you see in the film, how do laws and policies
prevent or facilitate corruption? Consider things like hiring
processes, how one earns a license to practice law,
requirements for arrest and detention and who has a say in
whether or not a prosecution moves forward.
Following the trial, those involved in the prosecution and
conviction received promotions. What was your reaction to
this news? When are promotions a natural and appropriate
reward for success and when are they evidence of
corruption?
Paco Larrañaga’s attorney Sandy Coronel says in the film,
“To lose hope in this case would be to concede the entire
justice system. Because I see this case as a test of how
effective and how real our justice system works.” What was
your reaction to that statement? If this was a test case, how
do you think the Filipino justice system fared in the end?
Prosecution witnesses received reward money. Should
witnesses ever receive payment for their testimony? If not,
why not? If so, under what circumstances?
How does being in prison change Paco? What does this
suggest about the practice of imprisoning people while
they await trial?
• If a friend asked you what this film was about, what
would you say?
• Describe a moment or scene in the film that you
found particularly disturbing or moving. What was it
about that scene that was especially compelling for
you?
José Bono, Spain’s minister of defense at the time, asks the
president of the Philippines to commute Paco’s death
sentence. In your view, is Spain overstepping its bounds
and interfering with the justice system of a sovereign
nation? Do you think Spain should play a role in this
situation?
Fair Trials International, Amnesty International and the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights all get
involved in Paco’s case. Given what you see in the film, is it
advisable to involve independent human rights groups in
these matters? What are those groups able to do that
others are not?
The Arrest
Journalists indicate that police were under a great deal of
pressure to solve this crime. What factors create pressure
on the police? Under what circumstances do acceptable
factors (e.g., eliminating possible danger to the public) give
way to undue influence that leads to mistakes or
corruption?
Inspector Pablo Labra zeroed in on Paco because Paco’s
name appeared in police records (the result of a “minor
scuffle” in 1995). In your experience, what does a criminal
record do to a person’s reputation? How many people in
your community, family or circle of friends have criminal
records? How do you think this influences people’s
perceptions of them?
Thelma and Dionisio Chiong say that Paco pursued Marijoy
Chiong and she rejected him, implying that he was a
spurned suitor. What is the impact of this statement on the
general public? What does it suggest about the culture’s
beliefs about men and masculinity?
|14
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 DISCUSSION PROMPTS
Evidence
If you were telling the story from Chiongs’ side, how would
you explain each piece of evidence, each trial decision and
each “coincidence”? What if you were telling the story from
the Larrañaga family’s point of view?
Thirty-five witnesses signed affidavits stating that they
were with Paco in Manila while the alleged crime was
happening in Cebu. What made this alibi evidence
believable or not believable? Which of the witnesses do you
find believable and why do you find those people
convincing?
Paco’s sister Mimi says, “You know, at first, Mrs. Chiong had
my sympathies. I’m a mom, too. I have a daughter, too. And
I felt her pain.” Did you share her sympathy? What makes
Mimi change her mind?
The filmmakers present several “coincidences.” What
conclusions do you draw from these events?:
• Paco was arrested by plainclothes police officers who
did not have a warrant or proper I.D. The arresting officers
also worked as bodyguards for the alleged drug lord
• Shortly before the murders, Dionisio Chiong’s trucking
business was under investigation for drug trafficking. He
was scheduled to testify against his boss, in front of a
congressional committee on drugs, but before the
scheduled date his daughters disappeared and he decided
not to testify.
• Cheryl Jimenea, Thelma Chiong’s sister, supervised a
raid of the Larrañaga family farm based on reports of
screams coming from the property.
• After the trial, Judge Martin Ocampo was found dead
in a hotel room with a suicide note.
• While Paco’s case was on appeal, President Joseph
Estrada was convicted of corruption and removed from
office.
• The chief justice of the Supreme Court of the
Philippines, which rejected international pleas to suspend
imposition of the death penalty, is related to Thelma
Chiong.
Trial Procedure
What was the role of the victims’ family in the prosecution
of this crime? In your view, what is the proper role for
victim families?
Davidson Rusia is arrested and confesses, then implicates
Paco and the others, in exchange for his freedom. Do you
find his story to be credible? Why or why not?
Prosecuting attorney Teresita Galanida points out that the
Philippine legal system does not use juries. Only a judge
actually hears evidence. What are the strengths and
weakness of that system?
The defense seeks a change of venue from Cebu to Manila.
If it were up to you, what criteria would you use to decide
whether or not to move a trial out of the community where
the crime was committed?
What is your explanation for these trial rulings? How do you
think Ocampo would have explained them?:
• The judge refused to hear testimony from many of
Paco’s alibi witnesses.
• Cross-examination of key prosecution witness
Davidson Rusia was limited.
• The judge excluded forensic evidence that challenged
the identification of the body.
• When defense lawyers challenged that ruling, the
judge jailed the lawyers and continued the trial with lawyers
that he appointed.
• Paco was not allowed to testify in his own defense.
In explaining his sentence of life imprisonment, Judge
Ocampo says, “You have to follow what the law says.”
Given this statement, how do you think Paco ended up
being sentenced to death?
The Impact and Response
What is the significance of the film’s title?
Paco Larrañaga’s father, Manuel, says, “As parents we feel
incredibly helpless... if we fall, our son falls.” What is the role
of family support in Paco’s survival?
As is the case with most convictions, the consequences
extend beyond the sentences served by the defendants.
How do Paco’s trial and conviction affect the members of
his family? How about his classmates or the community in
which he lived?
Mimi says that after the death sentence was imposed “we
didn’t know how to comfort him. How do you tell him, ‘I’m
sorry for this injustice. I’m sorry that it happened to you’?”
What would you tell Paco?
|15
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 DISCUSSION PROMPTS

The death sentence shakes Mimi’s faith in God. How does Television personality Teddy Locsin, Jr. calls the boys
Father Reyes’ response to the injustice help restore that “animals” and “drug addicts,” and he derogatorily describes
faith? What are the other “ripple effects” of the choice Paco as “a Spanish-blooded mestizo.” What role do word
made by Father Reyes, and the other runners, to take a choices, labels and prejudice play in shaping people’s
public stand in support of Paco? Compare those “ripple perceptions of the defendants and their case?
effects” to the effects of the verdict itself and the
A re-enactment of the crime based on Rusia’s testimony is
corruption that was behind it.
broadcast nationally while the trial is occurring. Should
Justice media outlets be prevented from airing such broadcasts, or
do they have the right to do so as part of free speech or
The Arroyo administration ultimately abolishes the death
their duty to keep the public informed? If you were a
penalty. What does Paco’s case offer that could or should
regulator, what guidelines would you offer to govern such
inform current debates over the death penalty?
re-enactments?
Despite Thelma Chiong’s attempts to obstruct the transfer,
Journalist Leo Lastimosa says, “It’s so easy to manipulate
Paco is ultimately sent to Spain. Why doesn’t the transfer
people. It’s so easy to exploit drama and tragedies and
end this case for the Philippines? What else would need to
calamities to favor selfish interests.” In this case, who did
happen for the matter to be fully resolved? What would it
the manipulating and exploiting? How did they manage it in
take to restore justice in the Philippines?
the face of such overwhelming evidence of Paco’s
In Spain, the prison review board says that it will grant innocence?
parole to Paco if he admits his guilt. Paco responds, “How
can I assume something I didn’t do? I can never admit guilt
because I am not guilty. I’d rather… have the death penalty
again than admit a crime that I didn’t do.” If you were Paco,
how do you think you would respond to this “Catch-22”?

At this point, what would justice look like for Paco?

The Role of Media

How would you describe the role that journalists played in
convicting Paco and in freeing him?

How did media outlets benefit from reporting on, and

sensationalizing, the murders and the trial?

Paco’s mother says, “My mother comes from a political

family. Her family name is Osmeña. So the media always
would put ‘Paco, the scion of a political and wealthy family.’
We are not wealthy. My husband works so hard. We have a
farm and he works so hard so that we can have our daily
living.” What role do you think class and ethnicity played in
Paco’s arrest and prosecution and the publicity surrounding
the case? Why would the media cast Paco as the “scion of
a political and wealthy family”? What is the appeal of a
presumably rich young man going to jail?

At the beginning of the film, reporters and investigators ask

Paco questions such as, “Who do you think framed you?” If Additional media literacy questions are available at:
you had been interviewing him, would these have been www.pbs.org/pov/educators/media-literacy.php
your questions? What questions would you have
asked?

|16
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 Taking Action

• Conduct fundraisers or public information campaigns to support the efforts of human rights
organizations like Amnesty International or Fair Trials International to free people who have been
unjustly imprisoned. In the United States, local affiliates of the Innocence Project can provide
suggestions on how to start or where to find support for ongoing initiatives.

• Visit http://freepaconow.com/ and explore ways to get involved in the Free Paco Now campaign

• Research jail and prison conditions in your state, especially conditions for people awaiting trial
(who have not yet been convicted of anything). Compare them to the conditions you see in the
film. Decide what changes, if any, should take place and make a plan of action to address the
needs. As an alternative, meet with the families of people who are incarcerated and listen to their
experiences and their needs. Discuss ways your community could help meet those needs.

• Convene a screening of Give Up Tomorrow as part of a teach-in or debate on the proposition that
the United States should follow the example set by the Philippines and abolish the death penalty.

FILMMAKER WEBSITE
www.pacodocu.com
The film’s official website includes video in Spanish, the filmmakers’ blog, an update on Paco and information
on the Free Paco Now campaign.

Original Online Content on POV

To further enhance the broadcast, POV has produced an interactive website to enable viewers to explore the film
in greater depth. The Give Up Tomorrow website—www.pbs.org/pov/giveuptomorrow/—offers a streaming video
trailer for the film; a list of related websites, articles and books; a downloadable discussion guide; and special
features, including deleted scenes and updates on Paco’s case.

FREE PACO NOW REPRIEVE

http://freepaconow.com/case-documents http://www.reprieve.org.uk/cases/pacolarranaga
Advocates for Paco’s release have gathered documents Reprieve uses the law to enforce the human rights of
related to the case. Available in English and Spanish. prisoners, from death row to Guantánamo Bay. The group
investigates, litigates and educates, providing legal support
FAIR TRIALS INTERNATIONAL to prisoners unable to pay for it themselves. This page
www.fairtrials.net/cases/article/francisco_juan_ provides information regarding the Larrañaga case.
larranaga_paco
This organization assists individuals accused of crimes who
are being held in foreign prisons and it helped to bring
Paco’s case before the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights.

|17
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 RESOURCES

Human Rights and the Death Penalty PROCON.ORG

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
www.amnesty.org/en/region/philippines/report-2012
For the current status of human rights in the Philippines,
access this report from Amnesty International. Also of
interest is the group’s information on abolishing the death
penalty (www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty) and its
petition in support of Paco (www.es.amnesty.org/
actua/acciones/filipinas-espanol-condenado-a-muerte/).
CHANGE.ORG
http://criminaljustice.change.org
Change.org is an online hub for social change that hosts
online communities for 20 major causes, including prison
reform. With a team of hundreds of writers and nonprofit
partners, it serves as a central platform for promoting
movements for social change on the Web. The section on
criminal justice provides information about broken prison
systems around the globe and how governments are
working to address the issue.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org
This site, which focuses on the United States, provides an
overview of the policy debate regarding the death penalty,
as well as information about the history of the death
penalty and its implementation. There are also links to
Amnesty International’s global reports on which nations still
carry out death sentences.
UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF THE HIGH
COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
www.ohchr.org
On Larrañaga’s behalf, this office pressured the Philippine
government. The office’s website provides country-by-
country reports, as well as general information on human
rights.

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

www.hrw.org/search/apachesolr_search/philippines
This link brings up current headlines related to human rights
in the Philippines on the group’s website. Search for the
term “death penalty” to see stories about current death
penalty cases across the globe.

INNOCENCE PROJECT
www.innocenceproject.org
The Innocence Project is a national litigation and public
policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully
convicted people through DNA testing and to reforming
the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. Law
students handle case work while supervised by a team of
attorneys and staff.

|18
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Give Up Tomorrow
 HOW TO BUY THE FILM
To order Give Up Tomorrow, go to www.shoppbs.org
Produced by American Documentary, Inc.
and beginning its 25th season on PBS in
2012, the award-winning POV series is the
longest-running showcase on American television to feature
the work of today’s best independent documentary filmmakers.
Airing June through September with primetime specials during
the year, POV has brought more than 300 acclaimed documen-
taries to millions nationwide and has a Webby Award-winning
online series, POV’s Borders. Since 1988, POV has pioneered the
art of presentation and outreach using independent nonfiction
media to build new communities in conversation about today’s
most pressing social issues. Visit www.pbs.org/pov.
POV Digital www.pbs.org/pov
POV’s award-winning website extends the life of our films
online with interactive features, interviews, updates, video and
educational content, as well as listings for television
broadcasts, community screenings and films available online.
The POV Blog is a gathering place for documentary fans and
filmmakers to discuss their favorite films and get the latest
news.
POV Community Engagement and Education
www.pbs.org/pov/outreach
POV films can be seen at more than 450 events nationwide
every year. Together with schools, organizations and local PBS
stations, POV facilitates free community screenings and
produces free resources to accompany our films, including
discussion guides and curriculum-based lesson plans. With our
community partners, we inspire dialogue around the most
important social issues of our time.
25th Anniversary Partner:
The See it On PBS logo is a trademark of the Public Broadcasting Service and is used with permission. All rights reserved.
Major funding for POV is provided by PBS, The John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, National Endowment for
the Arts, The Educational Foundation of America, New York
State Council on the Arts, New York City Department of
Cultural Affairs, FACT and public television viewers. Funding
for POV's Diverse Voices Project is provided by the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting and The Andy Warhol
Foundation for the Visual Arts. Special support provided by the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. POV is
presented by a consortium of public television stations,
including KQED San Francisco, WGBH Boston and THIRTEEN
in association with WNET.ORG.
American Documentary, Inc. www.amdoc.org
American Documentary, Inc. (AmDoc) is a multimedia
company dedicated to creating, identifying, and presenting
contemporary stories that express opinions and perspectives
rarely featured in mainstream-media outlets. AmDoc is a
catalyst for public culture, developing collaborative strategic-
engagement activities around socially relevant content on
television, online, and in community settings. These activities
are designed to trigger action, from dialogue and feedback to
educational opportunities and community participation.
You can follow us on Twitter @POVengage
for the latest news from
POV Community Engagement & Education.
Front cover: Paco Larrañaga behind bars, being interviewed by
a news reporter, shortly after he was arrested for the kidnap,
rape and murder of two sisters in the Philippines.
Photo courtesy of Arni Aclao
25th Anniversary Partner: Media Sponsor: