ABSCBN News reports that the Court of Appeals has acquitted US Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith in the controversial Subic Bay Rape Case and has been ordered released immediately. It will be recalled that his accuser, Ms. Suzette Nicolas y Sombillon recently issued an affidavit recanting testimony that most likely led to his conviction by the Makati Regional Trial Court in December 2006, saying she was no longer sure that the rape had indeed occurred. Ms. Nicolas has reportedly married and is presently residing in the United States. The prosecution of the case and the conduct of the trial was marred by the highly politicized atmosphere surrounding it, with leftist lynch mobs and knee jerk nationalists confounding a possible crime of passion and self-control involving two persons with calls for the abrogation of long standing treaties and agreements between the two countries, such as the Visiting Forces Agreement and the US-RP Mutual Defense Treaty.
Popularity: 1% [?]
I am guessing that Marine Lance Corporal Smith in 3 days or less will be on a plane headed back to the USA mainland to get debriefed by his employers (US military) and he then rejoins his company or gets re-assigned.
But if anyone is thinking that Evelyn Ursua ("Nicole's" lawyer) should refund all moneys paid to her, it should be remembered that Lance Corporal Smith was, in fact, convicted of rape (so Lawyer Ursua did win the original case for "Nicole").
Smith is an acquited Rapist. Nicole recanted her Rape story for a U.S. Green Card.
if he was acquitted, then he is not a rapist.
No that only means that there is a degree of reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime.
Nicole doesn't act like a rape victim. She was allegedly raped by an American but next thing we know she's going to marry another one. That sound like a rape trauma victim to you?
Spot on.
Smith is a rapist. Was acquited because of behind the court trade-in…
A rapist , but not convicted…
And to DJB: You should take comfort in the acquittal although you have been proven wrong.
In your "Unethical to Call … a Convicted Rapist", you wrote (actually in response to me, and I play your response below):
By sensationalistically and vengefully and repeatedly calling him a "convicted rapist" in headlines and broadcast stories, they are only working off their frustrations. But they have also foreclosed completely the possibility of Smith being acquitted on appeal.
They have gutted the fair possibility of such acquittal, I believe, by prejudicing the CA and SCORP justices by publicity and propaganda. . . . .
Well, history has shown that the Pinas journalists and bloggers did not complete foreclose the possibility of acquittal on appeal. You have to have join Patricio Mangubat, DingG, ManuelBuencamino, Abe Margallo and cvj and others who have faith on the Pinas legal system.
You cannot deny that without the "recantation" these dire consequences may have engulfed the accused and as these subsequent events have shown, that would 've been travesty of justice because we would have imprisoned an innocent man. Your twisted logic cannot take away the glaring fact that it was blatant prejudice and rash judgment that have now been exposed as such. It was definitely unethical since the Code of Professional Ethics for Journalists pledges to uphold an accused's presumption of innocence. They did not. You did not. That was immoral, unethical and despicable.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you are not. You are angry, frustrated, indignant, flustered. Too bad.
Nicole has faith in the U.S. Green Card…
Hopefully this proves that the Pinoy legal system construes according to the law, as Saint Thomas More once had it. Now Gabriela and I can construe according to our wits, that is our right as non-lawyers!
Now my dears, this acquittal proves that our system works. Just as when the Israeli Supreme Court acquitted Demjanjuk the justices penned
"This was the proper course for judges who cannot examine the heart and mind, but have only what their eyes see and read." They also added "The matter is closed-but not complete, the complete truth is not the prerogative of the human judge."
So those who split hairs on semantics of what acquittal means, it pays to heed the wisdom of the Israeli justices.
that Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.
sure slows down the process.
Dude, sorry, your post need to be approved … HA!HA!HA!
Clark and then CONUS.
What arrived at SBMA around 2AM today?
I had an earlier comment where I said that with the acquittal, that I expect within 3 days or less for corporal Smith to fly back to USA, be debriefed by his employers (US Military), then for him to rejoin his unit or get re-assigned.
And no one should even think for lawyer Ursua has to refund all fees paid her…. after all, Lance Corporal Smith was convicted of rape because of Lawyer Ursua's services.
Smith will rape again…
Keep your Ku Klux Klan hood ironed and pointy-headed then.
The Lynch Mobs will indubitably ride again!
3 days? How about 3 hours?
If you were Daniel Smith, which would you choose?
I will rape a
I will Rape a Filipina again…
Cpl Smith debriefing is education to American military in the Philippines. The debriefing comes down to this. Filipinos and Filipino justice and pekeng-peryodistas are dumb, stupid, idiots. KEEP AWAY. BE WARY. When wanting for sex. Get in-Get out-spit-on her and leave …
And DJB….. it is probably worth it to point out that you were wrong in your "Unethical to Call Smith a convicted Rapist". You actually were responding to me when you wrote that Filipino journalists and bloggers "… have also foreclosed completely the possibility of Smith being acquitted on appeal. "
So now it has been proven to you and you can join Patricio Mangubat, CourtJester, cvj many others who have belief in Pinas and that "lynch-mob demagoguery" only gets so far and justice does get served by the Pinas legal system. ACQUITTAL!!
UPnGrad,
Surely you are not now saying that it WAS ethical to call him a "convicted rapist" are you??
Aquited Rapist…
acquitted.. NOT a rapist
Legal Definition: acquittal
A decision by a judge or jury that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty of a crime. An acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
UPN,
That's pure semantics….. from criminal standpoint, it does not matter. he gets out of jail any which way.
The pronouncement matters though if the losing party would like to bring a civil indemnity suit ala O. Simpson case. Thus a pronouncement that the accused was in no way guilty of the offense charge because it was trump-up, precludes any possibility of a "civil suit" but not when the court says that the "prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt"
In the latter case, the losing litigant is allowed to file a civil suit because in this case, only "preponderance of evidence is required" not "evidence beyond reasonable doubt".
to a legal purist, it would be "convicted rapist after trial but acquitted on appeal".
An "acquitted rapist" is an oxymoron.
The Lesson is that under our Justice System, no one is ever "convicted" of a capital crime unless three Courts, each with an increasing number of judges, find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Each Court in a sense must VOTE TO CONVICT. Just as the Congress cannot pass a Law until both Lower and Upper House approves it, so too, no accused is convicted of a crime until all three "Houses" of the Judiciary concur.
So if you disagree with Unicameral Conass, you have to agree that Uni-Courtal conviction is just as perverse and deluded. The Lynch Mob has in effect been claiming a Bill approved by the Lower House is already a Law. What has happened today is that the "Senate" (actually the Court of Appeals) has rejected that "Bill" and demonstrated the error of your interpretation of things.
I am just trying to explain things as I honestly — and rigorously — see them. You do not need to acknowledge this to me. I ask only that you test your understanding of the argument.
"Acquitted Rapist" is an oxymoron. Suppose Mr. Tasio is accused of murdering his mother and chopping her to pieces. He is convicted at RTC but acquitted at CA because the real murderer and psychopath is found and confesses.
Would Mr. Tasio accept the label "acquitted matricidal maniac"?
Justice requires that even if Mr. Tasio WAS the murderer, he should still be acquitted if insufficient evidence resulted in the invocation of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Tasio will immediately go to Subic, then, to celebrate his being acquitted.
But I will concede that I underestimated the ability of the Judges to be fair and impartial. However, I have not criticized the Lynch Mobs in media and online enough for their unethical behavior in trying to convict him by publicity and repetition of epithets and prejudicial labels. That was what was happening. Now look at the dates. That post was before the Affidavit of Nicole was issued.
Under RA8505, it was even illegal to mention the name of the accused in public. Surely calling him a "convicted rapist" and making it appear as if the case was final was unethical on that basis alone.
Never was the RTC conviction of rape FINAL and EXECUTORY, hence, there never was a "convicted-rapist Smith."
The still presumed innocent Smith (even at the CA level!) was not found guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt. To put it in another way, no moral certainty of Smith being a rapist was found.
My post last month foreshadowed this?
__________
All this publicity about the affidavit of recantation could be a red herring to prep the public mind (the lynch mob as DJB calls it) for the eventual acquittal of Smith. The affidavit if not authenticated by Nicole, because she is now in Disneyland, is an inadmissible piece of evidence. Smith will however attempt to introduce it into the record and the appellate court will treat it just like that – “a mere scrap of paper.” But if the court is bent on acquitting Smith, it will find a reason for a judgment of acquittal based on what’s on the record. The reason may be flimsy but jeopardy will attach just the same to bar further or another prosecution for the same offense.
The summary on radio that I heard earlier today said that the judges of the CA could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt upon review the same evidence and testimony that Pozon saw. They said the Prosecution did not settle various inconsistencies in Nicole's testimony at trial. The affidavit has no legal standing, other than that of moral suasion of telling the truth! (but you call it a "red herring").
DJB,
If you could provide us links to both decisions (the trial court's and CA's) I would be glad to offer my critique on them based on underlying substantive law and remedial law principles.
But Abe.. giving you links will be for naught. When you are bent on concluding that the court was bent on acquitting Smith, then my belief is that you will find reasons to support what you are bent on concluding
..
even if you have not read any of the documents that you now look for.
abe,
i think i was the one who said that the out of court recantation is prep the mind of the public for an acquital verdit as it has no legal probative value at all because it is not part of the evidence presented at the trial.
DJB's position was that it should be taken "cognizance of by the court" because of its relevance and practical value to the case.
But I can commend DJB for being able to look at the situation of CPL Smith from a truly objective view and free from heightened emotions and bigotry that surrounds the case.
DJB,
DJB,
I’ve use “red herring” as an allusion to Red Herring Prospectus for an IPO (Initial Public Offering) or “floatation” of shares of securities where disclosure statement is printed in red ink on the cover of the prospectus explicitly stating that the issuing company is not attempting to sell its shares (and hence have not yet become effective) until approved by the SEC.
If the Smith's lawyers are fully aware that unless authenticated by Nicole, the so-called “recantation” would be inadmissible, what is the purpose for floating it other than for extra-legal effect such as for instance prepping to assuage the “lynch mob” in the event of acquittal on appeal?
UP n,
I thought Smith was guilty only because the trial court found him guilty of rape by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In our system of laws, decisions of the trial court are often accorded great respect by a reviewing court (as well as by public opinion). It appears the CA in another criminal case, in denying former governor Leviste to post bail after his conviction beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court, has applied this principle in law. I am therefore interested if the same principle has been observed and justice thereby served in Smith case.
Court of appeals acquit … Right-thinking citizens would ACQUIT, TOO!
Nicole enjoyed her rape…she is now married and living in America.
Until now the ultimate gung-gongness of our pekeng-peryodistas has not found out who Nicole married, where she's living in America and many more unanswered questions … but when it comes to politics, our pekeng-peryodistas seems to have crystal balls what other politicians are doing and their intentions …
Boycott pekeng-peryodiko!
there was no rape. she recanted.
this is even more ignoble and ms. nicolas does not deserve your vituperation. She may have lied, but you are embellishing her faults with your own malicious and ungrounded views.
djb,
again i agree. smith should only be guilty for treating Nicole like dirt, but not rape… but i think for treating her like dirt, she was justly compensated…. i would still root for her…
A good price for a U.S. Green Card. Get Raped by a U.S. Marine. Live happily ever after in the United States.
The Lawyers for Nicole got what they deserved…
Tasio,
These are ignoble sentiments. I do not agree with them.
i am with you DJB on this one. i think we can pat our own shoulders at the back now because we stayed with Smith despite the suffocating contrary opinions of those who wanted to lynch him.
It seems you have learnt nothing from our previous discussions. His conviction at trial was the trial conviction. That is all! It has nothing to do with "guilty" or "not guilty". It is merely the vote of one Judge. That vote was overcome by a unanimous vote at the CA, which found that Pozon saw no reasonable doubt where they find lots of reasonable doubt. There is only one case here. There is no "original case" and then a subsequent case on appeal.
We all need to move forward.
The government of the day appears to be on a roll with a berdugo ex-general now a congressman plus another presidential relative now further 'loading' the congressional numbers for the 'little girl'.
The reversal of a lower court decision against the backdrop of a long-standing unequal diplomatic relationship just validates in whose favor the scales of (in)justice tips.
No gloating for the supposed victors please.
The blogging-world is a lot about disagreements and conflict. There are rabble-rousers who who will flog current events to stoke a following for whatever. There are those who will piggyback their personal agenda onto a current-event., etcetera There are comedians and K-J's
One a rare day that he fells generous, Renato Pacifico may advice that even for a blogsite-audience of fifty-two or ninety-four, disagreements and kibitzing arise, and he or she who can't stand the heat can always get out of the kitchen.
Of course, Smith should be acquitted. 1st, our invistigators don't know how to inbistigeyt. 2ndly, Nicole recanted; 3rdly, Nicole is gone. Therefore, no case!
It's a slap on pekeng-peryodistas, embarassment on Gabriella. And many thanks to pekeng-peryodistas for violating her rights to privacy as stated in some archaic englischtzes law books. Did the pekeng-peryodistas slapped on violating her rights? NO! Who'd want to aqttack pekeng-peryodistas? Or, They'll attack you.
Oh, by the way, no brilliant-intelligentist-englischtzes-speaking pekeng-peryodistas were ever attacked by columnists of divulging her identity in violation of her privacy. THANK YOU PEKENG-PERYODISTAS!!!
Boycott pekeng-peryodiko! The paper you boycott, saves trees, saves environment!
That's the irony. With the current recession that American Dream has been much shattered.
I think that Nicole enjoyed her Rape. She went to America to have more of American taste. She got also
a permanent residency. What more can she ask for? Except her supporters in the Philippines were "nagmukhang
mga tanga"…
Well expect more traffic snarls across the road from Bayview Hotel!
a triumph for justice after all those mob-lynching brouhaha…. in my blog i put a contrary post: justice for cpl lance smith.
Camano,
I just love your bragging ways.
DJB is a real sport. Not a word of 'I told you so.'
nasty,
please contribute some genius other than your nasty ad-hominems.
tasio,
lawyers can only advocate what is best for their clients. .. all those extrajudicial motions and public drumbeating were designed to promote the interest of the clients. at the start of professional engagement you tend to believe what your clients would tell you and sometimes if they don't you try to make out of the situation to make something out of her misery even if at the back of mind your prospective theory of the case would not stick you cannot fault them for this. but as i used to say, you cannot win them all. but you can put the nicole case in a proper context by considering the fact that it was through the media and nicole supporters and her lawyer atty. ursua who made possible that her case was catapulted into public consciousness. a prominence that gave her some room to maneuver for settlement.
she would not have been able to go to the U.S., with pocket money to boot had not the press, her supporters and atty. ursua taken the case.
overall, all is well that ends well. as regards atty. ursua, she was thrust into prominence also. an exposure is one income that you cannot quantify about. :)
"Smith" an example of — even with a prior Phil-court decision of "guilty" of embezzlement or rape or homicide or income tax evasion, with further review the Philippine courts are capable of reviewing the weight of evidence to reverse a wrong decision and then declare "Not Guilty". J-Camano knows this to be true.
The sad thing about Pinas, though, is that a number of innocents ARE in prison because poverty prevents them from marshalling the resources so they can appeal their case to the Philippine courts.
UPN
If you consider that the Magdalo Court convicted Bonifacio for treason, Ninoy Aquino by the MIlitary Tribunal for subversion and sentenced to die by musketry and the SCORP refused to intervene in the conviction, the Masschussets Supreme Court convicted suspected withes in the famous Salem Withcract Trial, and Jesus Christ was convicted for blasphemy and heresy, then you can say that any human institution is infallible and capable of making an erroneous decision. There is no such thing as no-fail safe human institution.
UP n Grad,
WTF! Are you trying to rub salt on our wound?
We lost our cause, so we lost. There will be another case involving a VFA U.S. military man. Next time around, we'll make sure to get the best advocate. Preciooouuusss.
Camano? Not.
What was your REAL cause?
The Philippine Judicial System and National Invistigative Services are contracted out to FilipinoVoices.com for excellence in objectivie rulings and fine-tooth comb invistigations.
The media will also be farmed-out to us for a fee.
Please submit your names and your addresses where FV can forward the checks to :)
i mean no human institution is infallible and there is no such thing as fail-safe institution. man has yet to invent a fool-proof system to insure a that only the guilty are punished. somehow, somewhere the system fails and our only consolation is that it does not fail most of the time.
Witchhunt has started http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/na... AS USUAL!!!! HA!HA!HA!
There was a driver, there was a maid, there was a 12 year old child and nobody heard a thing. Nobody saw 3 people. HA!HA!HA!HA! SO MUCH HAS CHANGED … HA!HA!HA!HA!
IT'S NO WONDER Amerikanos insisted Cpl Smith has to be acquitted because our invistigators and justice system and pekeng-peryodistas are extremely gung-gong …. HA!HA!HA!HA!
Ding,
You were right, we must move on. This post analysis of nicole's case however is not entirely fruitless. We saw group of people who looked at the rape victim and almost everyone of them had tried to identify themselves with the victim and took the cudgels for her. (please continue reading the following post as the system won't allow the entire post for being too long).
(continuation)…
There are few people also who tried to look at the bigger picture of "due process", and would allow the courts unimpeded view of the evidence and unhampered by the vitrolics and emotions that accompanied the case.
I do not detest these people who supported Nicole. It was their support that catapulted the case into prominence and had given Nicole more room to maneuver for "out-of-court settlement" via U.S. passport, and some pocket money to boot. For treating Nicole like dirt, (though not raping her), Mr. Smith must pay. Nicole is entitled for compensation and she got it just right. That she was able to manipulate the system for her advantage, from my standpoint is inconsequential. The powerful had been manipulating the system for their own advantage too and no one was ballistic about it. I won't begrudge Nicole for putting one all over us, and I cheer for her…
From my perspective it was not Mr. Smith who won this case. It was Nicole. ! ! !
i dont understand why anyone would feel sad or happy about this case.
due process was given to the case, which is what VFA includes.
we all knew that a reversal was at least a possibility. if IT WERE NOT then why have an appeal at all?
the only thing i don't understand is why nicole said there was no justice, when in fact the process was rolling along.
if anything, medyo matagal ang processo. but thats something only a few have been complaining about…
i can now conclude that this country is never good for women. it's only good for hookers. Nicole should have been a hooker in the first place. She could have been paid up front with US dollars without the hassle of suing somebody. Poor poor women in this country- It must feel like living in some middle eastern countries. They have no rights even if they will fight. What a turn off to go home seeing my fellow women with very few rights. I wonder who would and protect the others?
Ahhhhh.. i should move on and shrug my shoulders as if nothing happens (APATHY)
This is BULLSHIT. and where's my smiley face ?
but there was due process right? lets admit that at least.
The Lynch Mob deserves angst.
Congrautlations to Daniel Smith! From the very beginning I already knew that Daniel was innocent.
I am from a poor family so I know what Nicole wants.It is to escape poverty and live in the so called America. Who doesnt want to live in a decent kind of living. But Nicole wanted things to happan so fast. She didnt care if she hurt others, she forgot her own dignity and she became a whore just to get what she wants. Now that she is in the United States I just pray that she will live a happy life.If she will be bothered by her conscience then she should go back to God and really change.For Daniel he's not also innocent in the eyes of God. He should not have touched Nicole even if there was consent. This thing should have taught him a big lesson and to others because social climbers can hook anyboby with their venomous fangs …
In the end, it was Daniel Smith who was "raped".
In the end, the judge and the prosecutor "raped" him.
In the end, the pseudo-raped victim was the one who 'raped' him.
In the end, it was the pseudo-raped victim's legal counsel who assisted her do the act of 'rape' of an innocent young man.
I don't know but this scenario is disgusting – a crime can be invented???
Convicted rapist Daniel Smith us now an acquitted rapist.
As Nicole's mother said, Kahit mag-iiyak tayo wala na tayong magagawa Ganyan talaga ang hustisya sa bayan natin.
DJB,
I reread your post "The presumption of innocence" and I'm trying to reconcile it with what you wrote in your post "Kidnap for Ransom from Somalia to Sulu"
In "Kidnap…" you said,
"On the contrary I think the authorities must make escape impossible and make it crystal clear that AS SOON AS the terrorists make a move to kill or harm their hostages, an attempt to defend and rescue those hostages will instantly be launched and measures taken to prevent such action, including the forceful neutralization of any suspect who does not immediately surrender."
Suzette and Smith were BOTH used by the leftists in the Philippines (Gabriela, Bayan Muna, lawyer Ursua, politicians Hontiveros, Madridal, Legarda, etc.) for their POLITICAL and career aspirations.
They did NOT really care about either of them but they saw an OPPORTUNITY and Smith was USED as an effigy of the US.
That the Philppines is treated by the United States the way the American generals treated Aguinaldo is very true. Here's an observer's view of that treatment: "'Play Aguinaldo for a sucker! String him along until Manila is captured – and then 'don't do a thing to him,' but get out the Gatling guns.' This is inferential from the "mutilated" and asterisk bestrewed cablegrams set forth in the records of Doc. 62 and Mess. and Doc., Vols. 3 and 4. Furthermore these records show that Aguinaldo and the insurgents up to the time of the capture of Manila were treated as allies "to be made use of" by the representatives of our government with the full sanction of President McKinley, and in view of the facts clearly presented to him that they were fighting for independence and expected recognition of their cause from the United States." http://macapili-filipino.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-really-happened-on-february-4-1899.html” target=”_blank”>Read more
That the Philppines is treated by the United States the way the American generals treated Aguinaldo is very true. Here's an observer's view of that treatment: "'Play Aguinaldo for a sucker! String him along until Manila is captured – and then 'don't do a thing to him,' but get out the Gatling guns.' This is inferential from the "mutilated" and asterisk bestrewed cablegrams set forth in the records of Doc. 62 and Mess. and Doc., Vols. 3 and 4. Furthermore these records show that Aguinaldo and the insurgents up to the time of the capture of Manila were treated as allies "to be made use of" by the representatives of our government with the full sanction of President McKinley, and in view of the facts clearly presented to him that they were fighting for independence and expected recognition of their cause from the United States." http://macapili-filipino.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-really-happened-on-february-4-1899.html” target=”_blank”>Read more