EVALYN URSUA, fired lawyer of Nicole, and lawyer Katrina Legarda, have told Cheche Lazaro on ABSCBN News’ Media in Focus tonight that the Philippine Daily Inquirer and anyone else, including bloggers, publishing her full name and pictures are CRIMINALLY LIABLE for “revealing” such information about the alleged rape victim of the accused Lance Corporal Daniel Smith. Helped along by Katrina Legarda they accused the newspaper of violating at least four laws protecting victims of crime like rape, specifically R.A. 8505 whose pertinent provision reads:
Section 5. Protective Measures. – At any stage of the investigation, prosecution and trial of a complaint for rape, the police officer, the prosecutor, the court and its officers, as well as the parties to the complaint shall recognize the right to privacy of the offended party and the accused. Towards this end, the police officer, prosecutor, or the court to whom the complaint has been referred may, whenever necessary to ensure fair and impartial proceedings, and after considering all circumstances for the best interest of the parties, order a closed-door investigation, prosecution or trial and that the name and personal circumstances of the offended party and/or the accused, or any other information tending to establish their identities, and such circumstances or information on the complaint shall not be disclosed to the public.
As far as I can tell, this is an admonition to the Courts to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of such persons as Nicole. Therefore, I would say that the FIRST to break this law was Judge Benjamin Pozon himself, from whom the Public first learned the full name of Nicole upon the promulgation of his decision in December 2006. The other obvious law-breaker is the Supreme Court of the Philippines (SCoRP) which named Nicole in the recent 9-6 Decision upholding the Constitutionality of the VFA in G.R. No. 175888 in which the title page contains her full name in BIG BOLD LETTERS.
Isagani Yambot, in defense of his newspaper tried to point out that it was during the live radio coverage of Judge Pozon’s decision that Nicole’s real name became publicly and widely known. He claims to have at least seven blogs that did so at the same time. I think this episode of Media in Focus will be replayed several times this week. Try to catch it…even Filipino Voices bloggers who have published Nicole’s full name could now be the targets of the Lynch Mob.
Popularity: 1% [?]
well…..i first heard of nicole’s real name from atty. ursua herself, when she was interviewed by DZMM.
Pat,
Did you notice the words of the Law?
Am chewing on this.
Quite an interesting test case at the very least for both MSM, AND NEW MEDIA WHO FIND THEMSELVES BOTH ON THE SAME RECEIVING END OF THE BIG STICK.
DJB,
Maybe you can help educate us on whether what that lawyer has said holds water.
Simplemindedly, we have been told by that lawyer that the crime of rape is less than a crime against chastity but already a crime against persons, reason why the title of the case is ‘People of the Philippines vs. Daniel Smith’.
If so, we are the victims here. As such victims, collectively but not individually, we have been violated that it makes no sense for us to further hold liable anyone who would reveal Lady A’s real name as the victim or other such information as those already revealed in public by the judge that prosecuted the case.
In other words, the cat is out of the bag and anyone who says so does not have to have committed a crime. This is one, among many legal mythologies that now have to be crashed.
Karlpopper,
Note the important fact that the law requires BOTH the offended party AND the accused have a right to privacy, not to have their names dragged in the mud until it is determined who is lying or not.
I am not a lawyer, just a critic of texts. I’m feeling very bad right now, because I’VE been using the accused’s name while maintaining the use of Nicole. Ursua at Legarda were deceptive and disingenuous tonight with my good friend Cheche Lazaro. When they mentioned those four laws and very specifically RA 8505, they DID NOT MENTION this to her.
Karlpopper,
Such parity of rights only makes sense. Because forget na lang the details of this case. Party A is accused of raping Party B. We do not know for sure if the accusation is true or false. Therefore it only makes sense that both identities be preserved.
Thus the accused in this case has had his due process rights violated already. He deserves acquittal on this fact alone!
For now, even if he is acquitted, he will never live down the label “rapist” that was laid on him.
The law clearly cuts both ways but how indeed that the accused is cast in the worst of light and the accuser (turns out to be conscience stricken at the last step of the course)is damn too protected – her face long been masked, her real name long been unrevealed? And when her face is finally flashed, her name finally stated after the judge himself that prosecuted her case made it public in an interview or what – the still creates a lot of uproar from no less than the accuser’s lawyer herself.
So we have here a situation that allows us to keep pounding on the same victim that should be protected by a well-meaning law. This is a lot of baloney on the part of those seeking privacy.
We did not even know her full name. We just know her
by her “Nicole” name.
Anyway, she has a Good Deal. $2,000 plus a Green
Card. Who can beat that Deal ?
I first knew her real name from a commenter. I deleted it though.
cde,
$2000 is NOT a lot. Within one week, that money is gone.
She got a US Fiance Visa sponsored by her US Military fiance of 2 years.
This is the BEGINNING of the END of the CAREERS of Ursua, Maza, Pozon, Madrigal, Salonga, etc.,
@DJB
does it say: ” At any stage of the investigation, prosecution and trial of a complaint for rape, the…”
isn’t the trial over?
cde,
In addition, the $2000 that Suzette got was a COURT ORDERED payment for moral and compensatory damage that Judge Pozon ORDERED Smith to pay Suzette in 2006.
We all got screwed, not just Nicole…at least
she got a deal. We got none, except we are taken
for a ride. We are also willing victims.
BOTH Smith and Suzette were RAPED by Ursua, Maza and her Gabriela clan, Madrigal, Salonga, Pozon, anti-Americans, etc.
They are both young and naive.
… but Smith was also RAPED by the Philippine Judicial System.
cde:
$2000 isn’t a good deal. that’s not enough to cover a max-out credit card, or two months rent for a comfy room in NYC … lol
We all have been screwed with a judicial system that does not understand the ground it seeks to extract the oil of justice from.
May it then be suggested that any name of the real Nicole or even Nicole be stricken off the official record or transcript of FV in all its blogs and comments? The pictures may well have to be stricken as well unless a strong legal argument would have been drafted to counter such a rather ‘malicious attack’ against MSM and New Media.
To my mind, where justice ends, enlightenment begins.
kp,
Not at all.
If you care to:
http://filipinovoices.com/nicoles-american-dream-suzettes-legacy
I think I understand why the identities should be kept hidden, though it’s new to me that the accused and the accuser should have it equally.
In any case, take a close look at the pictures of them side by side. Do you see a rapist and a rape victim? To me, I see good looking individuals perfect for calls that go “uyy, bagay kayo!”
Pinutakte siya ng mga Bloggers!!!
Not exactly. No one comes up the blogosphere without first passing through the Old Media platform. In short, journalists muna ang nag fiesta bago bloggers.
dami talagang matatlino sa pinas…may nagsasabing ok na daw ipublish ang name ni nicole..ngayon naman sinasabi din na criminally liable pala yung nagpublish…ang daming matatalino…mga magagaling..walang katulad ang pinoy talaga..malulupit…
pero bakit kaya di tayo umuunlad? bakit kaya mga gunggung at kurakot pa din ang namumuno ng gobyerno natin? bakit kaya hinahalal pa din natin ang mga politiko o kapamilya ng politiko na syang pumapatay sa bansang pilipinas at mamayang pilipino?
matalino nga ba talaga ang pinoy? pwede bang sabihin na matalinong tanga ang pinoy?
uyyy kape na tayo…sa dunking donuts lang kasi mura kape dun hehehehe
Wow! From heroine to prostitute at Ellen Tordesillas’ blog entitled Ang Bugaw ni Nicole!
How the worm has turned! Kawawa talaga si Nicole!
DJB,
R.A. 8585 as “an act providing assistance and protection for RAPE VICTIMS” (my emphasis)and does not appear to provide parity to the accused in terms of privacy right protection. Please read the entire law again and you will get my point.
Rape “is an intrusion into the right of privacy, an assault on human dignity “(People vs. Reyes, 60 SCRA 126; People vs. Nazareno, 80 SCRA, 484) not of the accused but of the rape victim.
I mean . . . R.A. 8585 as “an act providing assistance and protection for RAPE VICTIMS” (my emphasis) does not appear to provide parity to the accused in terms of privacy right protection.
Abe,
If Nicole’s affidavit is to be believed, the only real victim here is Daniel Smith. And excuse me but read 8505 again please (and get beyond the title, which could refer to the accused as much as to allegedly offended party).
DJB,
None of the following beyond the title is for the benefit of the accused:
Section 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998.”
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared the policy of the State to provide necessary assistance and protection for rape victims. Towards this end, the government shall coordinate its various agencies and non-government organizations to work hand in hand for the establishment and operation of a rape crisis center in every province and city that shall assist and protect rape victims in the litigation of their cases and their recovery.
Section 3. Rape Crisis Center. – The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Department of Health (DOH), the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a lead non-government organization (NGO) with proven track record or experience in handling sexual abuse cases, shall establish in every province and city a rape crisis center located in a government hospital or health clinic or in any other suitable place for the purpose of:
(a) Providing rape victims with psychological counselling, medical and health services, including their medico-legal examination;
(b) Securing free legal assistance or service, when necessary, for rape victims;
(c) Assisting rape victims in the investigation to hasten the arrest of offenders and the filing of cases in court;
(d) Ensuring the privacy and safety of rape victims;
(e) Providing psychological counselling and medical services whenever necessary for the family of rape victims;
(f) Developing and undertaking a training program for law enforcement officers, public prosecutors, lawyers, medico-legal officers, social workers, and barangay officials on human rights and responsibilities; gender sensitivity and legal management of rape cases; andalf-1awphi1
(g) Adopting and implementing programs for the recovery of rape victims.
The DSWD shall be the lead agency in the establishment and operation of the Rape Crisis Center.
Section 4. Duty of the Police Officer. – Upon receipt by the police of the complaint for rape, it shall be the duty of the police officer to:
(a) Immediately refer the case to the prosecutor for inquest/investigation if the accused is detained; otherwise, the rules of court shall apply;
(b) Arrange for counselling and medical services for the offended party; and
(c) Immediately make a report on the action taken.
It shall be the duty of the police officer or the examining physician, who must be of the same gender as the offended party, to ensure that only persons expressly authorized by the offended party shall be allowed inside the room where the investigation or medical or physical examination is being conducted.
For this purpose, a women’s desk must be established in every police precinct throughout the country to provide a police woman to conduct investigation of complaints of women rape victims. In the same manner, the preliminary investigation proper or inquest of women rape victims must be assigned to female prosecutor or prosecutors after the police shall have endorsed all the pertinent papers thereof to the same office.
xxx
Section 6. Rape Shield. – In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
Section 7. Appropriations. – For the establishment and operation of the rape crisis centers during the first year of implementation of this Act, the amount of One hundred twenty million pesos (P120,000,000.00) shall be charged against the Organizational Adjustment Fund, as follows: Sixty million pesos (P60,000,000.00) for the DSWD; and Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000.00) each for the DOH, DILG, and DOJ, respectively. Thereafter, the necessary amount for the rape crisis centers shall be included in the budgetary allocations for the agencies concerned in the annual General Appropriations Act.
“If Nicole’s affidavit is to be believed . . .” I dunno Dean. I’ll probably consult with MB first because I like his position on this score. And maybe Bencard can help us explain too whether at this point legally speaking that affidavit is Nicole’s or not.
ABE,
Do you believe that accusation is synonymous with guilt?
(Obviously not!)
Therefore, do you also believe that the accuser is always the victim in a case of rape. Suppose the accusation is in reality false? Cannot the accused then become the victim in such a “rape case”?
If Suzette Nicolas was lying in her original affidavit immediately after the rape, as her new affidavit seems to suggest, has Daniel Smith not been victimized by the fact that everyone is now unethically, unfairly, and unjustly labelling him a “convicted rapist” when it has not been decided with finality that he is guilty?
Now I grant you that the passages you quote addresses the majority of such cases, in which the accuser really was raped by the accused.
But the plain language of the law clearly gives parity of rights to privacy between accuser and accused because until it is determined who is in fact telling the truth, we would be denying them EQUAL PROTECTION.
It is certainly not your position–judging from my appreciation of you as an honorable person– that there ought to be such a parity of rights to privacy for the accuser and accused, because we do not actually know who the victim is until the case is completely resolved.
Thus, I do not deny that this Law also provides counselling and assistance to the alleged victim of a rape, and indeed the testimony of persons assisting in that manner is often valuable at trial and could benefit either accused or accuser as such.
But this does not obviate the main point we are discussing because of the statements of Ursua and Legarda making it seem as if only the accuser or offended party has the right to privacy.
I hope you can affirm this point: that we should have been hiding the identity of Smith as thoroughly as we were hiding the identy of Suzette Nicolas from the very beginning and up to the trial decision.
Indeed, since the lawyers are claiming that right of privacy for the accuser, now even after the trial, I would only agree with them if they stipulate the accused also still has that same right because in fact the case has not been decided with finality and the demands of equal protection from unfair and unjust publicity have not abated.
Correction to 7th paragraph of my 2:00 pm comment:
It is certainly not your position–-judging from my appreciation of you as an honorable person–-that there ought NOT to be such a parity of rights to privacy for the accuser and accused, because we do not actually know who the victim is until the case is completely resolved.
I hope this is an accurate statement of your opinion on the parity of privacy rights?
BTW, glad you brought this all up because it now occurs to me where the culpability of Media DOES reside under RA8505!
You see, the Media — actually all the authorities — completely ignored this plain demand for a parity of rights to privacy of accuser and accused under RA 8505 by immediately and completely identifying Daniel Smith 14 months before the trial even started, but studiously keeping Suzette Nicolas anonymous.
DJB,
Again, my point is that RA 8585 has been conceived to provide care, assistance, shield and privacy PRIMARILY for the rape victims and therefore it is reasonable to infer that the recognition or mention of any right to privacy on the part of the accused is secondary to that which the law accords the rape victim.
Abe,
I quote the law RA 8505 again Section 5:
Now for a little grammatical criticism.
How should we understand the import of the and/or in the above passage?
Is this not the English compositional ligature that compleatly and absolutely establishes a parity of rights between accuser and accused?
Am I contextually grandstanding, then, JAG, when I read this passage and conclude that the Law makes it illegal to identify, either ONE or BOTH the accuser and accused? It is as illegal to mention just ONE of them as it is BOTH of them is what “and/or” surely means. That categorically means that NEITHER identity must be divulged to the Public.
On this basis alone–the violation of DUE PROCESS–I predict that the accused MUST be acquitted on appeal!
Abe,
I guess you think RA8505, by establishing clinics to assist alleged rape victims abrogates EQUAL PROTECTION, too?
A lot of terms may have been used throughout the FV which have not first been defined so as not to confuse readers on what they mean.
Some of these examples are – lynch mob, shawarma topics, ocho ocho, benignoism, dacunt, and a lot more. I start to suspect that the universal language somehow starts to evolve in this site? I doubt however if they should soon find themselves in Webster’s dictionary?
Dean,
It being a lazy Sunday, was rereading your extract of the law’s shield proviso, and how you highlight the hew points.
I think to put the excerpt in the true context, we must understand that clearly the prohibition is not wholesale but is directed at the officers of the court, and the parties in the case, both accused and accuser — not the media, mainstream or otherwise.
“At any stage of the investigation, prosecution and trial of a complaint for rape, the police officer, the prosecutor, the court and its officers, as well as the parties to the complaint…”
I submit that journalist-bloggers have no reason to feel alluded to.
Spot on Ding. That is why RA 8505 will surely be a central focus of the appeal, because it seems that the accused was denied due process demanded under that law.
Journalists and bloggers are not specifically alluded to or given that duty. My earlier claim was that the Code of Ethics, though voluntary and not legal requirement, flows from the same source of equal protection and elemental fairness as the Presumption of Innocence.
What is clear, and what is important is that the accused’s basic right to privacy, was wantonly violated whilst that of Nicole was sanctimoniously and assiduously defended by most journalists and bloggers–out of an understandable sympathy.
But that is precisely the sort of prejudice that the Code of Ethics was meant to prevent, which journalists vow to not engage in because it IS unethically abetting or even encouraging the illegal acts of the authorities under RA 8505.
It was in other words, a criminal violation of RA 8505 for which certain parties ought to now be prosecuted that we knew the accused’s real name and complete personal circumstances of the accused but not of Nicole throughout the Trial phase. It would only have been doubly violative of RA 8505 if we had known BOTH their names.
djb,
justice of lance cpl. smith. :)
djb,
justice for lance cpl. smith. :)
Yes, guys/
This may now be appropriate to chew on, if you care to, which I have not simultaneously post here at FV:
http://midfield.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/nicole-revisited-daniel-the-victim/
Ding,
I read your entry, Nicole Revisited. Not entirely a tragic figure. Just getting smarter everyday. You can read my entry in my site: :)
Will do, jcc.
Thanks for the heads up. :)
I’m liking your blog, definately adding it to my RSS. Keep updating.