PEP's Version

After reading the chronological order of events about the controversial PEP article on the ‘gun-toting’ incident involving Richard Gutierrez, I am inclined to believe PEP has a valid point in waiting this long time before publishing it. I’m glad PEP did not succumb to the threats of the Gutierrez family – once again, Annabelle and her family’s credibility was crushed! Hurray for truth and freedom of speech … or for whatever is left of it in the Philippines.

Case in point A:
The controversial ‘gun-toting’ article per se is harmless. Had it been presented and shown to Richard’s lawyers before he filed his libel case, Richard would had been advised against setting his foot in the house of courts.

Case in point B:
Obviously, as it had been said all over the print, TV and radio medium, the Gutierrez family’s English reading comprehension is so limited to conclude ‘gun-toting’ as equivalent to ‘tinutukan’ or ‘tutukan ng baril’. And Ruffa claims to be an English-speaking gal? The word ‘toting’ came from the word ‘tote’, which means ‘to carry’ – just think of what a ‘tote bag’ means (a carry-on bag, if you don’t know what it means). Thus, ‘gun-toting’ means ‘carrying a gun’ or ‘carrier of a gun’ or ‘gun-carrier’. Simple, isn’t it?

Case in point C:
Richard said in one of his print and TV interviews that he felt like being treated like a criminal because of the article. And, if I remember right, Ruffa even claimed on print and on TV that Richard doesn’t own a gun. Hah! What a bunch of liars! Just so you know: an expired license for a gun is a criminal offence, Mr. Richard Gutierrez. It is inexcusable and idiotic to claim otherwise. Or is such idiocy allowed in the Philippines? And hey, Ruffa has the nerve to defend Richard as to owning a gun – Richard actually has three guns in his name! Yeah, wrong accusation. Bummer!

Case in point D:
I’d like to believe something did happen inside the restaurant – but no one’s willing to talk. Those involved are either afraid, or have been gagged. You can tell from their evasive answers to straight questions. They have ‘Zorrot’ to protect … too many ‘vested interests’.

Case in point E:
Everyone said to be involved in this unfortunate and controversial incident all claimed not to have seen anything, or noticed anything amiss – particularly the very people involved. There’s no mistaking they all had too much to drink, thus, they can’t remember anything. Ask Ely Quizon how much alcohol had he really consumed that night. Ask Michael Flores how drunk was he that night. I’ll bet he can’t even recall how many times he went back and forth that well observed lavatory.

Case in point F:
The ‘gun-toting’-incident did happen at the restaurant’s parking lot. When Ely Quizon was confronted with the facts on how he handled the gun in his hands, he came clean about it. But regardless of who held it or not, bottomline is the fact that Richard Gutierrez owns the gun – geez, it’s registered in his name. I’m sure he’s now thinking of how to explain these ‘misunderstandings’, or perhaps he’s likely to throw in the usual ‘blame game’ synonymous to their family nature.

Case in point G:
If Annabelle and her family have some decency left in their bones: they should fire Jun Lalin as their publicist. He is a baggage to drop as he knows not what he is doing, or what he has done, or have done. Or, was the instruction given to him is to drum up the controversial PEP article for publicity sake? Or, did the Gutierrez’ family saw an opportunity to stake in some quick cash through a ‘libel case’? Tsk, tsk, tsk … so very ill-advised.

My recommendations:
Subject all involved in a lie-detector test – that will surely be a field day! Once and for all, the general public will be entertained in identifying the big LIARS which plagued the entertainment industry.

Now, who’s going to give Richard Gutierrez Php25M for his wounded ego? Definitely, not PEP.