The Supreme Court’s Second Division has ordered the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) to return to film director Federico “Toto” Natividad the master copy of his 1999 film Butakal Sugapa sa Laman, which was allegedly based on the 1997 rape-slay of sisters Jacqueline and Marijoy Chiong in Cebu.
This, as the high court ruled as “not meritorious” Natividad’s petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals denying his plea for the issuance of a restraining order to the MTRCB.
In a 14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., the tribunal also ordered the MTRCB to resolve the administrative complaint filed by the Chiong family.
The movie, according to the SC, is supposedly based on the true story of the Chiong sisters who were kidnapped, raped and killed on July 16, 1997. Jacqueline’s body was found in a hurriedly dug grave, while Marijoy’s was never found.
The eight accused, some of them scions of prominent Cebu families, were convicted by the Cebu City Regional Trial Court, except for one who had turned state witness.
The seven convicts were each meted two sentences of reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment).
On automatic appeal before the Supreme Court, the penalties imposed by the trial court were affirmed with modifications in a decision dated Feb. 3, 2004. The subsequent motions for reconsideration, however, were denied on July 21, 2005.
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.
On May 12, 2000, Natividad filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which, in turn, denied it on Dec. 22, 2003, ruling that the MTRCB did not commit any grave abuse of discretion.
Natividad subsequently elevated his case to the SC, alleging that the appellate court committed errors in denying his petition for certiorari.
But the SC ruled that Natividad raised questions of fact, which were “not proper subjects” for the tribunal.
It, however, ruled that the MTRCB could not preventively seize the master copy of Butakal for more than 20 days.
“Thus, the MTRCB erred when it seized and retained the master copy of Butakal for more than 20 days,” it said.