The Story of the Sapang Bato Martyrs
PUBLISHED ON June 2, 2023
This article on the Sapang Bato Martyrs contains stories of Human Rights Violations Victims of the Martial Law era. To view the rest of the Roll of Victims see this link: Roll of Victims
This article on the Sapang Bato Martyrs is also published with a Filipino language version. To read it in Filipino, press this link: Filipino Article
First Quarter: A Storm Brewing
Office employees displaying the Philippine flag with the red side up, signifying a state of war, during the funeral march for former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino on August 31, 1983. Photo accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission.
1984 was a turbulent year for the Philippines. The economy was unstable, politics were tense, and violence was rampant months ahead of the Batasang Pambansa election. The country was facing an uphill path to recovery after being severely affected by the oil crises of the 1970s. Massive loans incurred for infrastructural projects and financial ventures became a heavy burden on the country.[1]
Things worsened in 1983 when former Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino was assassinated at the Manila International Airport (MIA). Aquino had been one of President Ferdinand Marcos’s foremost critics and political rivals. Not surprisingly, suspicions fell squarely on the administration and its associates. Both Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos dealt with accusations regarding their involvement in the killing.[2] The assassination triggered massive demonstrations nationwide as Filipinos took to the streets to call for Marcos to resign.[3] These protests often turned violent as demonstrators clashed with the police. Meanwhile, foreign bank creditors and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) became even more doubtful of the country’s capacity to eventually pay off its foreign loans.[4]
The demonstrations slowly morphed into a boycott movement at the onset of the campaign period.[5] Many believed that the administration was planning to use the elections to perpetuate the Marcoses’ hold on power. The elections would only maintain a veil of democracy, that is to say, Marcos would concede only to some opposition demands so he could establish an illusion of stability and appease creditors and the IMF.[6] At Marcos’s refusal to agree to the rest of their demands, groups further raised apprehensions about the legitimacy of the election. Among them was the Justice for Aquino, Justice for All (JAJA) Movement, which rallied for an election boycott because they believed that participation in the election would betray the cause of the people.[7]
1984 was a turbulent year for the Philippines. The economy was unstable, politics were tense, and violence was rampant months ahead of the Batasang Pambansa election. The country was facing an uphill path to recovery after being severely affected by the oil crises of the 1970s. Massive loans incurred for infrastructural projects and financial ventures became a heavy burden on the country.[1]
Things worsened in 1983 when former Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino was assassinated at the Manila International Airport (MIA). Aquino had been one of President Ferdinand Marcos’s foremost critics and political rivals. Not surprisingly, suspicions fell squarely on the administration and its associates. Both Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos dealt with accusations regarding their involvement in the killing.[2] The assassination triggered massive demonstrations nationwide as Filipinos took to the streets to call for Marcos to resign.[3] These protests often turned violent as demonstrators clashed with the police. Meanwhile, foreign bank creditors and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) became even more doubtful of the country’s capacity to eventually pay off its foreign loans.[4]
The demonstrations slowly morphed into a boycott movement at the onset of the campaign period.[5] Many believed that the administration was planning to use the elections to perpetuate the Marcoses’ hold on power. The elections would only maintain a veil of democracy, that is to say, Marcos would concede only to some opposition demands so he could establish an illusion of stability and appease creditors and the IMF.[6] At Marcos’s refusal to agree to the rest of their demands, groups further raised apprehensions about the legitimacy of the election. Among them was the Justice for Aquino, Justice for All (JAJA) Movement, which rallied for an election boycott because they believed that participation in the election would betray the cause of the people.[7]
Second Quarter: Hopes Overcoming the Odds
Batang Huawaran ng Bayan (BHB) joins the northern marchers at Meycauayan, Bulacan during the 5th day of Lakbayan on March 5,1984. Photo accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission.
Boycott in Sapang Bato
The boycott movement took on a more grassroots approach. In March, some 40,000 people – mostly farmers, fishermen, laborers, students, and the like – participated in the Lakad para sa Kalayaan ng Bayan, or LAKBAYAN. It was a week-long march beginning in various points in Luzon and converging at Manila’s Quirino Grandstand.[8] Then in May, shortly before the election, the Sakay Para sa Kalayaan ng Bayan, or SAKBAYAN, was conducted. Caravans of people – including peasant children, and jeepney and tricycle drivers from the North and South – met in Luneta.[9] Both marches echoed the same call for a boycott. This reverberated in many localities throughout the country.
One such locality is in Pampanga. The small town of Sapang Bato, located near the Clark Air Base, is home to a populace subjected to abuse. Due to its close proximity to the base, Sapang Bato was, at the time, often exploited by the Americans. The residents were often tapped to work odd jobs for the base, while their homes were lent to cottage industries. It was also home to officers from the Philippine Constabulary (PC) and the Civilian Home Defense Forces (CHDF). These were supposedly installed in the area to defend it from the subversives and radicals. However, multiple incidents made it apparent that they were there to suppress dissenters and help local officials and election candidates.[10]
The community was also economically troubled. Due to rampant exploitation, few managed to hold long-term jobs and many did not finish schooling. This was either because they were unable to afford it, or because even children had to work and help their parents earn a living. Families were broken by poverty and drugs.[11]
Amidst all this, residents grew averse to both the American soldiers and the violent Constabulary troopers. Even moreso, they condemned the administration that connived with the Americans and controlled the Constabulary. As the Batasang Pambansa election approached, local community leaders at Sapang Bato engaged their constituents on the possibility of a boycott. It seemed that their efforts paid off. When the presidential election was held in 1981, Sapang Bato tallied up to 6,000 registered voters. This number dwindled to approximately only 3,000 in 1984, and out of this, only about 2,000 voted. However, this also invited danger for the boycott leaders. This was nothing new to them, though – three of them, at least – as they had faced countless threats before.[12]
The Three Youth Boycott Leaders
These three were Claro Cabrera, Rolando Castro, and Pepito Deheran. Indeed, hardships were nothing new to them, even when they were teenagers. Cabrera quit midway through high school to work on construction projects to support his mother and seven siblings. Castro only finished elementary school and worked mainly as a tricycle driver to help his wife raise their children. Deheran had also quit school to work as a tricycle driver to help his family make ends meet.
The three became close friends and remained optimistic. Deheran often played basketball with his friends. He and Cabrera became godfathers to Castro’s two eldest. Castro also played basketball, but with the children in the community. He and Cabrera also taught them handicraft skills and t-shirt printing to help them stay off drugs. The three even built a small nipa hut near Cabrera’s place, where they often spent their free time.[13]
Their optimism spilled into their ideals for the country. In the 1980s, they began working with the Concerned Citizens of Pampanga, a cause-oriented organization in Central Luzon campaigning for human rights and social welfare. Following the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, the three began joining protest rallies and campaigning for the boycott of the election. They held meetings and organized for the same.[14] They joined their fellow workers marching in the LAKBAYAN and SAKBAYAN movements.[15]
Their parents, in retrospect, suspected that the three already knew on some level the danger they would face. Cabrera had been branded as a member of the New People’s Army (NPA) and Castro had been threatened by the CHDF. He even once told his father that they should continue fighting for justice should he die.[16] In spite of all this, their hope never wavered. After the May election concluded, the three remained in touch and frequently still met in their hut. Towards the end of that month, they asked permission from their parents to meet, as they usually do. This time, it was for a despedida (going away party) for a friend about to work in the Middle East.[17] It would have been like one of their usual meet-ups.
Third Quarter: A Rigged Game
The Incident
At around 2:00 AM on May 28,[18] Cabrera and Deheran were in their hut when a military jeepney arrived. Six men alighted – four PC troopers in uniforms and two CHDF operatives – and picked up the two. They were boarded in a military jeepney where Castro was already waiting; he was abducted earlier while driving his tricycle.[19] After this, they were then taken to the 174th PC military detachment and were hogtied, then repeatedly beaten. They were interrogated and tortured into admitting that they were members of the NPA. Although they vehemently denied this, they were further detained and tortured for about three more days.[20] The military continued to pin guilt on them, precisely because they participated in and led the boycott movement.[21]
Then on May 31, when interrogations were going nowhere, Cabrera, Deheran, and Castro were brought to a dark and undisclosed location. Suddenly, they were repeatedly stabbed all over their bodies. Once they thought the men were already dead, the military brought the bodies to the slopes of the nearby Apalit River and dumped them a kilometer apart from each other.[22]
Castro had his neck slashed and his body mutilated, while Cabrera bled from multiple stab wounds. Both died on the spot. Deheran, however, managed to play dead and survive, albeit with multiple stab wounds, bruises, and a broken leg. He managed to crawl and attract the attention of passersby, who managed to call for help. Deheran was then brought to the Central Luzon General Hospital.[23]
Deheran’s Last Hours
When word of the incident reached Deheran’s family, they rushed to see him in the hospital. There, Deheran managed to tell his mother what happened, including the deaths of Cabrera and Castro. He also identified the two CHDF operatives who committed the crime, but could not name the uniformed PC troopers, since they had no name tags. His mother and sisters remained in the hospital to watch over and care for him. He badly needed surgery that same night, so his mother was asked to buy a bag of blood for the operation. However, she was already feeling the presence of unwanted lurkers.[24]
Early morning the next day, Deheran’s mother was watching outside the intensive care unit, where Deheran was recovering from a successful surgery. Then, she noticed a man pulling down the hospital’s general switch, which shut down the electricity. Panic ensued. Amidst the commotion, another man slipped into Deheran’s room. A moment later, Deheran’s sister was heard screaming from inside the room. There, she saw Deheran nursing a wound where green fluid, which she assumed was poison, was coming out.[25]
Following this incident, Deheran’s health deteriorated. “He told me not to leave his side because he was already dying,” his mother said. Deheran was restless, frequently vomiting, and often short of breath. Despite this, on the afternoon of June 2, Deheran was still able to talk to his visitors: lawyers who were accompanied by nuns and doctors. The lawyers asked him to sign a written affidavit describing what had happened to him and identifying his killers. Some three hours after managing this, he ultimately succumbed to his wounds and died.[26]
A news clipping from Ang Pahayagang Malaya Vol. III, No. 90 (June 4,1984) reporting on the last days of one of the victims, as he was able to sign a written affidavit identifying the perpetrators. Photo accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission.
Early morning the next day, Deheran’s mother was watching outside the intensive care unit, where Deheran was recovering from a successful surgery. Then, she noticed a man pulling down the hospital’s general switch, which shut down the electricity. Panic ensued. Amidst the commotion, another man slipped into Deheran’s room. A moment later, Deheran’s sister was heard screaming from inside the room. There, she saw Deheran nursing a wound where green fluid, which she assumed was poison, was coming out.[25]
Following this incident, Deheran’s health deteriorated. “He told me not to leave his side because he was already dying,” his mother said. Deheran was restless, frequently vomiting, and often short of breath. Despite this, on the afternoon of June 2, Deheran was still able to talk to his visitors: lawyers who were accompanied by nuns and doctors. The lawyers asked him to sign a written affidavit describing what had happened to him and identifying his killers. Some three hours after managing this, he ultimately succumbed to his wounds and died.[26]
A Rigged Game
It seemed that from the start, the game had already been rigged against the three men. They were detained, beaten up, and ultimately killed on mere suspicions of being rebels; suspicions formed merely because they participated in the boycott movement. Towards the end, they denied being rebels. Their families also dismissed the allegation. The barangay captain of nearby Sapang Palay also came to their defense. Despite being the local campaign manager for the administration-backed Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL), he argued that they were just protesters.[27]
Though Deheran survived initially, those who pursued him still managed to get their way, finishing him off while he was recovering in a hospital room. It was swift and brutal, but this fate was something that the three may have known could befall them. Indeed, the barangay captain of Sapang Bato later reported that, aside from the three, 46 more people were to be picked up for participating in the boycott campaign. It apparently was – much like a rigged election – an orchestrated effort from the powers that be. In a last act to honor her son’s ideals, Deheran’s mother confessed that she was finally convinced to support the boycott movement.[28]
Fourth Quarter: Rebounding From A Loss
A news clipping from Ang Pahayagang Malaya Vol. III, No. 90 (June 4,1984) reporting on the last days of one of the victims, as he was able to sign a written affidavit identifying the perpetrators. Photo accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission.
The Funeral March
“What a pity. We lost a great basketball player.” A sari-sari store vendor said this to a journalist covering Deheran’s funeral march on June 6; Cabrera and Castro had been buried three days prior.[29] The three were respected in their community. Forty-two vehicles along with some 1000 marchers turned up at Deheran’s eleven-kilometer-long funeral march to bid farewell to one of their sons. Amid the raucous singing of “Bayan Ko,” three doves were released at his grave.[30]
Even during Deheran’s funeral, armed men from the PC and the CHDF came to accost the sympathizers who joined the procession. They harassed and yelled at them all throughout. The soldiers were enraged that the marchers were accusing them for the deaths of the three victims. They even taunted a group of media men and nuns and told them to go home.[31] When this group passed through At a military checkpoint, a commander shouted at the crowd and soldiers aimed their guns at them. The soldiers then attempted to stop the reporters from taking photos. When a reporter from Manila Hotline refused to stop, he was chased, had a rifle pointed at his head, and had his camera briefly confiscated.[32]
But the group fought back. The nuns dared the soldiers to shoot, the reporters refused to back down, and the townspeople pressed on, forcing the soldiers to retreat. The barangay captain arrived and ushered the soldiers back inside their quarters to diffuse the situation.[33] An atmosphere of fear took over. The residents of Sapang Bato were angry but cautious, knowing that to continue to protest meant they were risking their lives. One resident echoed their barangay captain’s earlier statement and lamented to the reporters that “soon, there may be more than just three martyrs here in Sapang Bato“. [34]
Justice Denied
Fear pushed the families of the victims to leave the investigation to the authorities. After some time, however, they began criticizing the investigators for not starting the investigation.[35] Instead, volunteer efforts from the Boycott-Central Luzon, the local arm of the organized boycott movement, the Task Force Detainees Philippines (TFDP), and the Concerned Citizens of Pampanga (CCP) helped launch a fact-finding mission on the case.[36]
Years later, the parents of the victims eventually mustered the courage to file a case at the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City. They filed it against the two CHDF operatives identified by Deheran, a certain sergeant, and three other John Does. These were the six people responsible for the deaths of the victims.[37] However, by 1994, ten years after the incident and upon the investigation of the Commission on Human Rights, it was discovered that the two CHDF operatives had been murdered. The case against the rest also did not prosper.[38] With the way, the three victims were killed and what they were killed for, the perpetrators either dying or escaping prosecution can hardly be called justice. Their families and sympathizers were left scrambling after the deaths of the three promising young men, unsure of what to do and what could happen next.
The Ball Is In Our Court
Cabrera, Castro, and Deheran's names, as seen enshrined in the Bantayog ng mga Bayani's Wall of Remembrance, among the initial roster of names etched therein. Photo by Reginald C. Coloma on June 10, 2021.
Aftermath
The Sapang Bato martyrs were never forgotten. Their parents fought for the recognition of their heroism and what they went through during the Marcos regime. They became claimants in the “Human Rights Litigation Against the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos,” (MDL No. 840, CA No. 88, the class action lawsuit filed by the many human rights violations victims of Martial Law and their families.[39] Their names were also in the initial roster enshrined in the Bantayog ng mga Bayani’s Wall of Remembrance in 1992. Most recently, they were also included in the 11,103 names in the Roll of Victims of the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission.[40]
Their efforts in the boycott movement were also not in vain. Although the 1984 elections gave Marcos and his allies a dominant victory, it also led to more doubts about his capacity to continue leading the country. Countless electoral anomalies triggered nationwide protests and rioting, as reports of vote-buying, cheating, and other instances of fraud spread. The National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) reported that it had no data on 10% of the provinces in the country. In 26% of them, however, fraud was so rampant that results were highly unreliable.[41]
Violence also marred the entire election period. Other than the three victims from Sapang Bato, there were also reports of killings elsewhere. During the LAKBAYAN march itself, four marchers turned up missing on the final day. Their mangled remains were later found in a shallow grave in Cavite. On May 14, the day of the election, in Negros, 11 men were apprehended and interrogated after voting. Nine of them were tortured and killed afterward.[42] At least 91 lives were lost just on the day of the election.[43]
The Legacy of Resistance
Thus, Marcos’ attempt to use the election to placate the doubts of his allies, foreign creditors, and investors only led to increased doubts and agitation. People continued to question his capacity and authority until late 1985 when he called for a snap election for the next year. Marcos hoped, with finality, to reinforce his administration’s legitimacy and control over a country already embroiled in political and economic turmoil. This maneuver, of course, ultimately led to the People Power Revolution in 1986.
This was the pattern during the waning years of the Marcos dictatorship. The demonstrations after the Aquino assassination, the boycott movement, the post-election protests, and eventually the People Power Revolution. All of these were instances of Filipinos taking matters into their own hands, risking their lives for their cause, championing their rights, and demanding justice. The unjust period turned many citizens into heroes and martyrs. They needed not to come from positions of influence or affluence. They simply acted based on what they believed in, and it ultimately made an impact. As we revisit the story of the Sapang Bato martyrs, we could pose a hypothetical question. In the face of a national crisis; through a perceived anomalous election; under a corrupt and murderous regime; under the same circumstances the three martyrs faced, what could we do?
The ball is in our court.
Endnotes
[1] Apolonio Batalla, “Why the May 14 exercise is unique,” in Bulletin Today, May 10, 1984, 34, in Election ‘84 -Boycott -Statements -Articles -Newspaper clippings, ‘84:3 Philippine Newspaper Clippings Bulletin Today Dec. ‘83-May 15 ‘84, Filippijnengroep Nederland Collection, Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, Quezon City, Philippines.
[2] Kim Rogal, Larry Rohter and Richard Vokey, “Facing a Future After Marcos,” in Newsweek, January 30, 1984, 32-33, in Election ‘84 -Boycott -Statements -Articles -Newspaper clippings, Elections ‘84:2 Articles on Election: -IHT, Newsweek, TEER, Filippijnengroep Nederland Collection, Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, Quezon City, Philippines; Angus Deming, Tenley-Ann Jackson and Richard Vokey, “Pointing a Finger at Marcos,” in Newsweek, 18 June 1984, 26, in Election ‘84 -Boycott -Statements -Articles -Newspaper clippings, Elections ‘84:2 Articles on Election: -IHT, Newsweek, TEER, Filippijnengroep Nederland Collection, Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, Quezon City, Philippines.
[3] Teodoro Benigno, “A nation in an angry mood,” in Philippine Signs Vol. 1, No. 1: 3, 8, accessed April 20, 2023, from the Bantayog Digital Library at https://www.bantayog.foundation/digital-library; “JAJA plans more protests,” in Philippine Signs Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 29 – October 6, 1983): 3, 8, accessed April 20, 2023, from the Bantayog Digital Library at https://www.bantayog.foundation/digital-library.
[4] Rogal, Rohter and Vokey, “Facing a Future After Marcos,” 33. The country’s foreign reserves was also overestimated by $600 million and its debt underestimated by $6 billion, further increasing doubts.
[5] Batalla, “Why the May 14 exercise is unique,” 25.
[6] Rogal, Rohter and Vokey, “Facing a Future After Marcos,” 33. Pat H. Gonzales, “Let the people do the talking,” in Bulletin Today, May 10, 1984, 25, 34, in Election ‘84 -Boycott -Statements -Articles -Newspaper clippings, ‘84:3 Philippine Newspaper Clippings Bulletin Today Dec. ‘83-May 15 ‘84, Filippijnengroep Nederland Collection, Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, Quezon City, Philippines. Though the opposition still fielded candidates, a large contingent refused to participate as Marcos rebuffed the more important demands to release political prisoners, lift press restrictions and relinquish control over the legislature.
[7] Lorenzo Tañada, “The 1984 Elections: Non-Participation Unless…,” in ICHTHYS Vol. VII, No. 4 (January 27, 1984), ICHTHYS 1984 Folder 2, ICHTHYS 1984, 19, Filippijnengroep Nederland Collection, Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, Quezon City, Philippines.
[8] “Isang Sigaw: Boykot!” in Philippine Signs Vol. 1, No. 18 (March 10-16, 1984): 6-7, accessed April 20, 2023, from the Bantayog Digital Library at https://www.bantayog.foundation/digital-library.
[9] Jo-Ann Maglipon, “SAKBAYAN North,” in WHO Vol. VI, No. 9 (May 30, 1984), 18, 20, accessed April 20, 2023, from the Bantayog Digital Library at https://www.bantayog.foundation/digital-library; Fe Esperanza, “SAKBAYAN South”, in WHO Vol. VI, No. 9 (May 30, 1984), 19, 21, accessed April 20, 2023, from the Bantayog Digital Library at https://www.bantayog.foundation/digital-library.
[10] J. Raul Alibutud, “Sapang Bato: Where The Boycott Movement Lost Three,” in WHO Vol. VI No. 12 (June 20, 1984): 6, accessed April 20, 2023, from the Bantayog Digital Library at https://www.bantayog.foundation/digital-library; “Cabrera, Claro G.,” Bantayog ng mga Bayani, October 15, 2015, accessed May 13, 2022, https://www.bantayog.org/cabrera-claro-g; “Castro, Rolando M.,” Bantayog ng mga Bayani, October 15, 2015, accessed May 13, 2022, https://www.bantayog.org/castro-rolando-m.
[11] “Cabrera, Claro G.”
[12] Alibutud, “Sapang Bato,” 6.
[13] “Cabrera, Claro G.;” “Castro, Rolando M.;” “Deheran, Pepito L.,” Bantayog ng mga Bayani, October 15, 2015, accessed May 13, 2022, https://www.bantayog.org/deheran-pepito-l; Alibutud, “Sapang Bato,” 6. Castro had also worked as a mechanic.
[14] Alibutud, “Sapang Bato,” 6.
[15] “Cabrera, Claro G.;” “Castro, Rolando M.;” Alibutud, “Sapang Bato,” 6; “3 more Lakbayanis stabbed dead,” in Political Detainees Update Vol. 8, No. 11 (June 15, 1984), in Political Detainees Update (1984-1986), 1984, Filippijnengroep Nederland Collection, Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, Quezon City, Philippines.
[16] Alibutud, “Sapang Bato,” 6-7.
[17] Ibid.; “Deheran, Pepito L.;” Claimant’s affidavit (Case No. 2014-14-00317, Quezon City, 2014), 1, 3, accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission. This friend may have actually been Deheran himself. After his passing, the family received news that he had been approved for a passport to work in the Middle East as a laborer.
[18] Most sources point to May 28, Monday, as the day the three were picked up, including the newspapers who managed to read Deheran’s sworn statement. However, there are a few other sources stating that it actually happened on May 30, Wednesday, including Deheran’s mother, and this must be given weight as well. This also fit the assertion that the victims were detained and tortured for “two nights and one day,” a phrase oft-repeated in various sources. Regardless of this, it is an undisputed fact that they were detained for a short time before the incident on May 31, which will be discussed later.
[19] Alibutud, “Sapang Bato,” 6; Claimant’s affidavit (Case No. 2014-14-10744, Quezon City, 2014), accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission; Bobby S. Javier, “Mga madre at media tinutukan! Hotline photographer, inagawan ng kamera,” in The Manila Hotline Vol. I, No. 3 (June 13-19, 1984), (Case No. 2014-14-10317, Quezon City, 2014), 12, n.p., accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission.
[20] Claimant’s affidavit (Case No. 2014-14-10744).
[21] Ibid.; Joel C. Paredes, “Dying man implicates soldiers, CHDFs in ‘salvaging’ of boycott organizers,” in Ang Pahayagang Malaya Vol. III, No. 90 (June 4, 1984), (Case No. 2014-14-10317, Quezon City, 2014), 1, accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission. As mentioned earlier, another version of the story, based on a few other sources, suggests that they were detained for just two nights and one day. Both versions, however, realigned on May 31, with an incident to be discussed shortly.
[22] Claimant’s affidavit (Case No. 2014-14-00317); Paredes, “Dying man implicates soldiers,” n.p.
[23] “3 more Lakbayanis stabbed dead;” “Deheran, Pepito L.” The police, along with the Apalit barangay captain, managed to respond to the call for help.
[24] Claimant’s affidavit (Case No. 2014-14-00317), 2.
[25] Ibid. Other sources, particularly newspaper reports, allege that the unknown attacker failed to stab Deheran due to the timely routine inspection of a nurse (or even the visit of a nun), but Pepito’s mother, being the primary witness, seeing her son tend to the wound oozing a green fluid would suggest otherwise.
[26] Ibid.; Paredes, “Dying man implicates soldiers,” n.p. Translated from Filipino: Sinabi [niya] sa akin na huwag na siyang iwan sa kanyang tabi sapagkat mamamatay na raw siya. In his conversation with the lawyers, he categorically denied that he was a rebel.
[27] Paredes, “Dying man implicates soldiers,” n.p. The captain’s own son, who was also in the boycott movement along with the three, had also been arrested.
[28] Alibutud, “Sapang Bato,” 6-7.
[29] Ibid., 6. Translated from Filipino in the article; Sayang, mawawalan kami ng isang magaling na basketbol player.
[30] Ibid., 6-7. According to an article in Ang Pahayagang Malaya Vol. III, No. 93 (June 7, 1984), the concelebrated funeral mass for the three, held on June 6 in Angeles City, was attended by some 1500 mourners.
[31] “3 more Lakbayanis stabbed dead,” 1, 10.
[32] Javier, “Mga madre at media tinutukan!,” n.p.; Alibutud, “Sapang Bato,” 7.
[34] Alibutud, “Sapang Bato,” 7; Paredes, “Dying man implicates soldiers,” n.p. Translated from Filipino: Baka hindi magtagal at maging higit sa talo ang mga martir ng Sapang Bato.
[35] Paredes, “Dying man implicates soldiers,” n.p.
[37] “Resolution,” CHR Case No. III-88-067 Komisyon ng Karapatang Pantao, September 28, 1994 (Case No. 2014-14-00317, Quezon City, 2014), accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission.
[39] “Resolution,” (Case No. 2014-14-00317, Quezon City, 2014), accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission; “Resolution,” (Case No. 2014-14-10744, Quezon City, 2014), accessed through the archives of the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission.
[40] “Roll of Victims,” Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, accessed April 20, 2023, https://hrvvmemcom.gov.ph/roll-of-victims/. Along with Deheran and Castro, Cabrera is also recognized by the HRVCB as one of the Motu Proprio victims, those who are recognized for their roles and actions during Martial Law, regardless of whether they filed for recognition and reparations or not. See https://hrvvmemcom.gov.ph/roll-of-victims/roll-of-victims-motu-proprio/.
[41] KAAKBAY, “The May ‘Election’ — Who Won?” in ICHTHYS Vol. VII, No. 22 (June 22, 1984), 5, in ICHTHYS 1984 Folder 2, ICHTHYS 1984, Filippijnengroep Nederland Collection, Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission, Quezon City, Philippines.
[42] Fe B. Zamora, “Long day’s journey into night ends for four marchers,” in Mr.&Ms., April 27, 1984, 20, accessed April 20, 2023, from the Bantayog Digital Library at https://www.bantayog.foundation/digital-library; Carol O. Arguillas, “Massacre in Negros: A New Dimension of Brutality,” in WHO Vol. VI, No. 12 (June 20, 1984), 14-15, accessed April 20, 2023, from the Bantayog Digital Library at https://www.bantayog.foundation/digital-library.
[43] “The Toll Steadily Rises” in Veritas Vol. 1 , No. 27, (May 20-26, 1984), 6, accessed April 20, 2023, from the Bantayog Digital Library at https://www.bantayog.foundation/digital-library. This is largely attributed to increased activity from the NPA and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) being mobilized against them, leading to clashes. Of the deaths, 60 were from the military, 16 from the NPA, and 15 were citizens.