I’ve been scratching my head a bit over just what really happened to Suzette Nicolas Sombihon in the days after the 2006 conviction of Daniel Smith and the time two weeks ago when the supposed rape victim decided to leave the Philippines for good having “failed to find justice” in the Philippines.
I revisit this issue because of the flurry of negative reactions about the decision of the Filipina, now 25 years old, to recant her story, even if she risks being accused of perjury.
Among recent derisive ‘tags’ I’ve come across characterized her as “having gone from being a heroine to a prostitute”, of being a “slut” or “skank”.
A close, close reading of her 206 complaint affidavit and her recantation reveal quite glaring shifts.
There also are indications that in her haste to leave the country it looks like Suzette didn’t even have time to renew her Philippine passport!
Note the date of the Makati affidavit and the expiration date of her passport.
These elements which are coming to light leads this writer to think that sadly, Suzette was, all this time, either:
- just a Filipina ‘on the prowl’ to get a quick ticket to the United States (even if it meant compromising her moral moorings);
- was heavily pressured to recant and leave immediately so the ‘injustice’ committed on the American soldier is undone;
- or that she was indeed raped but had now succumbed to her practical material needs.
However else her story ends I will remember her, ruefully, as a tragic, tragic figure.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Other than publishing her full name, pictures and passport number, what has been gained by this blogpost?
Ding,
You are not saying nonetheless that her passport is already expired, are you?
The time gap is 11 months and that gives her no reason to have to renew her passport just yet, does she?
That indicates to me that she may have to go back to Manila just so to renew her Philippine passport although she can perhaps renew that in our own consular office in US.
kp,
I separately consulted two former senior DFA officials yesterday among them one-time UP Law Dean Merlin Magallona, who served as undersecretary under former Vice President Tito Guingona when they were at the DFA.
He told me that in exigent situations, a departing individual could theoretically be issued travel documents certifying their status. After which upon reaching the next port, the Philippine consular unit thereat could by then be ready to issue he/she a new passport.
Suzette finally WOKE UP.
It keeps getting clearer and clearer that both Smith and Suzette were USED? in this case because they are young and naive.
Suzette was used by Gabriela, Maza, Hontiveros, Madrigal, Salonga, anti-Americans., etc.
Suzette was used by Judge Pozon and the Philippine Judiciary System.
The Philippine DOJ must investigate Suzette’s lawyer, Evalyn Ursua, and Gabriela, Bayan Muna, etc., and find out if Ursua wanted Suzette to give false testimony.
If proven guilty, Ursua and her groupies could go to jail from 6 years to 40 years.
GOOD!
Suzette can apply for a new passport in the US by applying through the Philippine Consulate.
There are also Mobile Outreach Missions sponsored by the Philippine Consulate in the US where she can apply for new passport.
It only takes about four to six weeks for her to receive the new one.
There is an elephant in the room everyone is ignoring.
Even though we are in the post-trial period, the Court of Appeals will not ignore that elephant because is it not now obvious that the RTC conviction of the accused IS void ab initio for violation of the accused due process and equal protection rights.
Unless the CA will be willing to believe that the accused wanted to have his name dragged in the mud while the “offended party” who has even recently recanted, could do so in the sanctimonious safety of anonymity.
Abetting these criminal actions by the lawyers and the authorities by following their example is indubitably UNETHICAL and IMMORAL!
Spot on, DJB.
Pun intended, the erstwhile “offended party” is now the ‘offending’ party..
Ding,
I am against the further publication of the names and pictures of BOTH Nicole and the accused. It does not serve Justice or Ethics for either of them and what benefit there lies for the Public, lies in the purely cerebral and dignified discussion of the principles, the laws, the events, the prognosis for which no personal details of either party is at all necessary or helpful.
The U.S. continue to treat Filipinos like they were during Aguinaldo’s time: “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.”
Agreed.
Philippine Supreme Court Rule 121 Secton 2b of Criminal Law Procedures states that:
“The court shall grant a new trial if a new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably changed the judgment.”
Most instructive, po.
Certainly points out Daniel’s options which we can presume his lawyer/s are on the ball on. :)
We have to move on with our lives. We have been
taken for a ride. We are sadder, but wiser from
now on.
Smith is a rapist who had used a date rape drug.
Nicole used this case as a ticket to a U.S.
Green Card Visa. Who is the winner ?
“Smith is a rapist who had used a date rape drug.”
Huh????
Serapio I’ve see you repeat this unattributed assertion several times.
With all due respect, you are peddling a patent UNTRUTH.
no, it is the truth…
Again, with all due respect, let me press you on this: where is your claim coming from?
Unless you can substantiate it you are really just poisoning the air further, kapatid.
i think they cut a deal. that’s why no one will be suing anybody. smith despite being proven guilty of rape will be set free. nicole gets her money (and probably a little extra) and her visa. and the two governments avoided having put an american serviceman in jail.
DJB,
Stop your self righteous posturing about presumption of innocence and all that. You approved of torture for suspected terrorists. You even resorted to that silly ticking time bomb theory to justify the unlawful torture and detention of suspected terrorists. Talk about ethics. Eeeew!
Daniel Smith was tried and CONVICTED. His conviction is on appeal. You cannot claim for him what you would not grant others.
“I” approved of torture of terrorist suspects?
First of all this is non sequitur. Second, I plead “not guilty”.
Third, without the presumption of innocence every single one of those “terrorists” and “enemy combatants” would’ve been dead and buried long ago.
What you cannot seem to accept MB is something called “equal protection of the Laws”.
You must be a charter member of the Lynch Mobs organized by Joma, which feeds on hatred and self-loathing, and can never represent the Filipino People’s best interests.
If we cannot stand firmly for Blind Justice, we shall always be blinded by our own prejudice.
Sooner or later the shoe will be on the other foot, and it is Democracy itself that would be destroyed.
That after all, is what the Left wants and that you are abetting.
So be my guest: add more and more reasons for the CA to acquit.