For The Record Lang
April 27th, 2009 by DJBJUST IN CASE anyone is interested in reading the actual Court of Appeals Decision in the Subic Bay Rape Case, (instead of distorted summaries by newspaper columnists, radical activists and the inconsolable but rapidly shrinking lynch mobs), I have uploaded it in PDF format to the Internet Archive for safekeeping and historical purposes. The Accused-Appellant’s appeal of the Pozon ruling of “guilty” is also here. The 71-page decision acquitting the accused appellant was penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo Zenarosa and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios S. Fernando and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal — all Lady Justices of the Court of Appeals who have recently been unfairly attacked and maligned by bloggers who indubitably had NOT read this decision, which memorably declares:
“As in this case, a careful and judicious perusal of the evidence on record does not convince the prudent mind about the moral certainty of the guilt of the accused, hence, we must acquit. To the point of triteness, it has been repeatedly stressed that in this jurisdiction, accusation is not synonymous with guilt and that this has still to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
No clearer affirmation can be had from the three Lady Justices tasked to rule on the appealed RTC decision, that they approached this case determined to uphold the Principle of the Presumption of Innocence, — to find within their own “prudent minds” a “moral certainty of the guilt of the accused” and “that this has still to be proved beyond reasonable doubt” or else “we must acquit.” It is worthy of note that the Court disregarded the “alleged recantation” of Nicole, in coming to its decision. The Court fundamentally agreed with the appellant on the salient point we have also been discussing here at Filipino Voices:
Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt, the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To meet this standard, there is need for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the State, both oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment.
Although the criminal case is now water under the bridge, I think there are many lessons yet to be learned from the emotional public discourse and heated political atmosphere that surrounded this case from the very beginning. However, I shall leave that profitable and salutary task to others.
April 27, 2009 at 1:14 pm
What's happening with the 3rd Red Cross hostage (the one with the hernia)? And what's the latest with the abducted teachers?
April 27, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Got lost in the shuffle as the lynch mob's short attention span moves on from one trivia to another.
April 27, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Na naman? Meron na namang hostage crisis? Ano naman, to? Philippine Gov is floated by ransom money on top of OFW remiottances …
HA!HA!HA!HA!
April 27, 2009 at 3:36 pm
The victim has already recanted her earlier testimony that convicted the Rapist Smith in the RTC. This
was done in return of in cash and in kind. The victim and the convicted rapist are gone. There is no other
choice than acquit the Rapist. Smith is an Acquitted Rapist.
April 27, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Smith is acquitted. Word "rapist" is applicable if convicted. It was Smith who was raped by our system. Thanks to one swoop of F-16 our justice system fell down by a mere sonic boom … HA!HA!HA!
April 27, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Making available the PDF document of the Court of Appeals ruling is good. Now, ManuB, AdB and DingG will always have available the court decision that they disagree with.
I find noteworthy that the court-of-appeals document mentioned this:
<i"We also noted curiously how the witnesses uniformly used the word 'pasuray-suray' and yet a careful reading of their earlier statements, given to investigators do not show mention of the word. The uniform description gives the impression that the testimonies were rehearsed.'.</i>
April 27, 2009 at 4:14 pm
So that they can overule the Court of Appeals? We cannot even overrule pekeng-peryodistas …. HA!HA!HA!
April 27, 2009 at 7:27 pm
sa totoo lang your neverendng references to " pekeng periodidstang is becoming naseauting and sickening. sino ba talgaang ang pekeng periodista na yan?. maganda siguro eh magbanaggit ka nag pangalan . sa ganyang paraan eh makausahun kung dapat makasuhan or ioverrule kung dapat e overrule ang taong yan.
susginoo! lahat yata ng comment mo eh tungkol sa pekeng periodista na yan. ganyan ba talaga kahina ang loob mo at hinahayaan mong maghari ang pekeng periodista na yan sa buhay mo ?
April 27, 2009 at 8:21 pm
If I didn't rub it in, Rego, they wouldn't have known. If I didn't point out the sloppy reports, they wouldn't have known. The Filipinos don't realize that their reporting is sloppy, editorial biased, coveraged is faulty unless they have internet to browse and read for news abroad.
Problem is, The Filipinos use internet for Friendster, YOuTube and porn sites only.
April 27, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Silang lahat! PEKENG-PERYODISTAS!!!!
April 27, 2009 at 8:14 pm
one interesting thing that shouts out to me is the fact that there was no formal test of intoxication when nicole was first seen by the doctor (Dr. Go).
shouldn't this be one of the first things doctors should look at? to ascertain with some degree of certainty?
because of this, the prosecution wasn't able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was intoxicated.
they prosecution also should have included testimony about how a woman behaves while drunk. (i.e. is it true that if you are drunk, you can't move around anymore? how drunk is drunk enough?) having not done so, they opened the door to doubt.
thanks DJB for sharing…
April 27, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Gabbyd:
It is a foregone conclusion that flipazz cops would bungle the investigation, like anything else that's all gone haywire in that forsaken island.
April 27, 2009 at 8:40 pm
lets learn from this. there should be a standard "rape investigation kit" that will automatically go into effect when the accusation has sounded.
one of them is physical examination. another, should be a blood test.
so that in the future, its clear.
April 27, 2009 at 8:46 pm
GabbyD:
There is a possibility that the medico-legal has a guidebook of a Standard Operating Procedures that include management of alleged sexual trauma victims. However, the procedure was not complied with and improperly executed.
If there is no guidebook, then all I can say is… WTF!
April 27, 2009 at 10:04 pm
The record is in your debt, DJB.
Thanks for passing the salt, likewise.
Two truths revelations surface:
Daniel is guilty of being a Horny Saint – Maginoong Medyo Bastos.
The grossly inebrated Suzette Sombilon Nicolas was a Skank.
Good riddance to both of them. One thought come to mind: The late Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul Manglapus who said in a celebrated case, "Well if you get raped, just enjoy it."
Well Suzette did and parlayed the drunken tryst with an American gwaping to get a fiance visa plus PhP 100,000 and a student visa for her brother.
Ang saya saya. :)
April 27, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Ding,
I told you that Nicole won this case….. hahahhahaha.
April 27, 2009 at 10:28 pm
So we're done. All's fair in love and war (plus rape). :)
Bailiff, call the next case,, please. :)
April 28, 2009 at 12:32 am
Let the three manang drink the amount of alcohol nicole drank and see if they could pull their pants up. that would be a reliable test intoxication.
April 28, 2009 at 1:22 am
Now that's a thought. :)
April 28, 2009 at 2:45 am
I bet those three "manangs" could drink you boyz under the table. Zenarosa was beauty queen in her day and I'd take her brains over any of our brave "nationalists" any day.
Are you guyz kidding. Just compare the quality of the ponencia with that gutter-mouth Ursua or any of the Gabriela Freakazoids.
Now Phil Manila, do be honest: have you read the Decision through so you know what the NARRATIVE as the Court appreciated it, is?
Folks I can tell you one thing: the result–guilty or not guilty–would not have changed my emotional reaction to this thing. From the beginning my main concern has been how everyone else was reacting to it.
JCC made the wisest observation: the spectators can never be in full possession of the what the judges know and see. Respect for the Presumption of Innocence is respect for our SANITY.
April 28, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Lumalabas talaga, para sa Gabriela at iba pa, ang issue ay hindi Nicole-v-Smith rape v consensual-sex kung hindi VFA at bakit the GMA government and also the Philippine courts give USA what USA wants.
April 28, 2009 at 12:51 pm
but It still remains on FV records — DJB plea that Smith serve his rape conviction sentence in Kansas.
April 29, 2009 at 1:30 pm
UP n Grad,
Please read the decision. U are just wasting our time.
April 29, 2009 at 1:39 pm
In the Makati court decision of Judge Pozon, the smoking gun was the admission of Daniel that he know the victim was unconscious while he is having carnal knowledge of her. Isn't this enough to to satisfy the words in No. 2 condition of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code? Judges are there to apply the law and not judge morality, right?
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.
April 29, 2009 at 8:45 pm
i'd agree, but according to the CA decision, Daniel didn't say that. he said its consensual and she was conscious.
do you have a link to the original pozon decision that says that?
this is key, coz this is a statement of fact admitted during the trial. if dan did say that, the CA decision should have mentioned that.
April 30, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Here is a portion of Judge Pozon's decision taken from INQ site: “ All these taken into account, the court is morally convinced that accused Corporal Daniel Smith committed the crime charged. He admitted sexual intercourse with complainant whom he knew was intoxicated and rendered unconscious by the accumulated effects of the different alcoholic drinks she has taken in succession at the time of the felony. She could not have consented to the bestial act of the accused.”
April 29, 2009 at 7:09 pm
You are spot on here. But be ready to be tagged as a lyncher by the defenders of Daniel. :)
May 2, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Ric,
Daniel Smith admitted that he had sexual intercourse with complainant whom he knew was INTOXICATED.
The rendering unconsciousness, etc., is the INTERPRETATION and judgement that Judge Pozon gave… NOT what Daniel said.
For Judge Pozon, since Suzette was intoxicated, he rendered that Suzette was unconscious to give consent to sex.
See the difference?
Do not forget that a Blood Alcohol Content or BAC test was NOT even done on Suzette to see the level of alcohol in her blood – how intoxicated she was.
Suzette's LEVEL of intoxication was based on what she and her SO-CALLED witnesses SAID.
Now, read the case that Suzette FILED against Smith. Here it is:
"That on or about the first (1st) day of November 2005, … conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, with lewd design and by means of FORCE, THREAT AND INTIMIDATION, with abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of the intoxication of the victim, did then and there wilfully, unlawflully and feloniously sexually abuse and have sexually abuse and have sexual intercourse with or carnal knowledge of certain Nicole…"
Can you comprehend on what the case is about?
May 2, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Ding,
We are not defenders of Daniel.
We are defenders of TRUE justice based on FACTS and evidence.
May 2, 2009 at 12:11 am
Ric,
Read and comprehend it: it says that "He admitted sexual intercourse with complainant whom he knew was intoxicated" the rendering unconsciousness, etc., is the INTERPRETATION that Judge Pozon gave… not what Daniel said.
May 2, 2009 at 2:30 am
"He admitted" means DANIEL ADMITTED in court publicly, right? I don't find any other way to read it. You asked for the RTC decision and I gave it to you. Now, you are misinterpreting the simple phrase "he admitted." I don't know what else would convince you.
By the way, Daniel paid Nicole P100,000 right? Doesn't the guilty one pay?
May 2, 2009 at 2:42 am
I'm trying to understand you. Maybe you think that Daniel admitted that he knew Nicole to be intoxicated, while the Judge interpreted Nicole to be "rendered unconscious." Is this what you are trying to say? If so, how is it that both phrases are found in one sentence with "Daniel" as the subject. It could only be that Daniel knew both the intoxication and unconsciousness of Nicole.
May 2, 2009 at 3:19 am
the key to understanding this ric is the phrase "All these taken into account".
what is 'these' (plural) that was taken into account? why plural? this means several facts were used to infer that smith "committed the crime…"
so daniel didn't admit her unconsciousness. the court believed that 'these' were enough to infer it.
May 2, 2009 at 10:48 am
GabbyD, Pardon me, but you seem to be going out of focus. The point here is simply: does the phrase "He admitted…" means Daniel admitted of knowing Nicole to be intoxicated and unconscious while raping her, which satisfies the 2nd circumstance of rape according the Revised Penal Code, and which is the main argument of Nicole.
Nicole got drunk > Daniel knew she was intoxicated and unconscious > Daniel raped Nicole > Daniel admitted of knowing Nicole to be drunk during the rape > therefore Daniel is guilty
May 2, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Ric,
Again… Daniel said that he knew Suzette was intoxicated. Daniel did NOT say that Suzette was unconscious.
When Daniel said that Suzette was intoxicated, Judge Pozon then rendered his verdict on Smith that since Suzette was intoxicated, therefore, she was unconscious to give consent to sex.
See the difference?
Suzette and Smith were BOTH used by Gabriela, Pozon, Ursua, Madrigal, Legarda, Hontiveros, etc., for their OWN political and career aspirations.
Judge Pozon let those users PRESSURED him to convict Smith eventhough all the FACTS presented pointed to consensual sex.
Judge Pozon should just QUIT being a Judge because he MUST based his verdicts and convictions on LAW AND FACTS and not based on EMOTION.
May 2, 2009 at 6:32 pm
so ric, i'm focusing on the inquirer article, specifically the quote:
" “ All these taken into account, the court is morally convinced that accused Corporal Daniel Smith committed the crime charged. He admitted…."
so i agree, we should understand how these decisions are written. decisions are funny and strange documents. here is the structure:
the judge looks at the evidence. this is the "All these taken into account", and in the inq.net article, this is the bullet point list of stuff…
the link is here: http://opinion.inquirer.net/viewpoints/columns/vi...
next, the judge says: according to the standard of evidence i must follow, to "All these" lead to " …the court is morally convinced that accused Corporal Daniel Smith committed the crime charged."? the answer was yes.
the next sentence is interesting…
not only do courts answer the "is this evidence enough to establish doubt", but they ALSO come up with an alternate story, a theory if you will, of what really happened…
this part is confusing, and i wish they wouldnt do it. but fact is, this is how decisions are written.
so WHAT is pozon's theory: Daniel was wrong (lying), he knew she was unconsious, admitted to it, etc… this is the "HE ADMITTED" part
what is KEY is this is pozon's THEORY of what happened, based on his finding that the "ALL THESE" evidence was enough…
this is EXACTLY what happened with the CA as well. SAME STRUCTURE: they look at the evidence. they say, "ALL THESE" facts are not enough to convict, and THEN tell people about a THEORY of what happened.
this theory is what Abe is writing about in this post — let me summarize: that it was a romantic engagement gone wrong, she felt wronged after the quickie sex, etc etc….
the stuff that Abe was writing about is NOT EVIDENCE. it is the judges' appreciation of that evidence, which reflects the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE assumption.
i commented to Abe exactly that earlier on this post. my understanding of his response is that he basically only said that he disagreed with the CA justices THEORY on what happened…
May 2, 2009 at 6:38 pm
anyway, i'm glad you raised this point. it makes everyone see how decisions are penned.
that judges write a THEORY to justify their findings of acquit or not. they acquit or not based on an standard of evidence, which in turn based on the presumption of innocence. bottom line: that evidence had better be good, airtight, cover all complaints, before the court convicts.
as i said to Abe, we can disagree about the evidence standard as regards rape. it may be too high a standard, but i don't have an opinion yet either way…
and then the judges write down the theory. the problem with pundits and the media, is that they FOCUS on the THEORY.
But thats putting the cart before the horse!
the only reason they wrote those things, is coz of their appreciation of the evidence based on the standard of presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt.
May 2, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Yes. She could have given consent while intoxicated.
Then passed out from the booze – before/during/or after the act.
Is that not enough for reasonable doubt?
May 3, 2009 at 7:27 am
BongV,
Who said that Suzette passed out?
Remember that a Blood Alcohol Content or BAC was NOT done on Suzette to see the amount of alcohol in her blood.
The level of her intoxication was based on what Suzette and her so-called witnesses said.
May 3, 2009 at 8:50 am
You are right, it’s funny. It’s funny that a sentence, with one subject and no punctuations in between, would have 2 main doers. And even funnier that the other subject is like fill-in-the-blank thing with any reader supplying the other hidden doer. In this case, you said it is Judge Pozon.
I looked at the CA decision, and after the “After all the above-mentioned facts…” (lower portion of page 66, right?) saw a liberal use of the word “we” to refer, of course, to the CA Justices which gives no fill-in-the-blank vagueness.
May 5, 2009 at 4:48 am
Meeh:
In that case, one can raise more reasonable doubts.
ika nga “if the glove does not fit, one must acquit”.
May 5, 2009 at 8:24 pm
“…he (Daniel) knew was intoxicated and rendered unconscious…”
No, I have no doubt that a sentence with a single subject has only one doer.