Nicole and her mother asked for a change of prosecutors, save for one, a plea which was quickly denied by Justice chief Raul Gonzalez, saying Nicole has no right to dictate to the DoJ who should be prosecuting the case. Delos Santos was kept on, despite the fact that she had publicly called Nicole a liar and Ursua a communist ally. Delos Santos should have resigned from the prosecution panel, knowing that her client had no confidence in her. Besides which, Delos Santos did something very unethical as she not only destroyed her client’s testimony by calling her a liar, but also insisted on going on with the case, and ensuring that more damage would be done to the prosecution’s case, by not going into the presentation of rebuttal witnesses, if only to impeach the testimonies of the US servicemen who had taken the stand.
Worse for Delos Santos and her team, the only one in the team who continued to enjoy the confidence of Nicole, went public to state that there was absolutely no discussion among the prosecution team on Delos Santos’ move rejecting a rebuttal, thus leaving the testimonies of the accused unimpeached, which only goes to show that there truly was a deliberate move on the part of the state prosecutors to ensure that Nicole would lose the rape case, and the Americans would walk.
It really is no different from a llamado boxer taking a dive — except that in the boxer’s case, he is no lawyer and is not sworn to do his best for his client.
To make it clear: This is not to say the accused Americans are guilty of having been accomplices to the rape of Nicole, or to say Daniel Smith, accused of raping Nicole, is guilty.
Similarly, this is also not to say Nicole was lying about the rape and that she had consensual sex, although from witnesses’ accounts that described her mental and dress state after they dumped her and sped off, and considering the circumstances surrounding that incident, consensual sex is too difficult to believe.
But this is instead to say the state prosecutors did their all to lose the case of their client, which is really disgraceful of them and of their legal profession.
Pati si Tessie Ang See (no leftist or anti-Arroyo) was disgusted by what she saw during the court proceedings.
“The accused are trained Marines who employed brute force and dared abused Filipinos because they know that with the country’s mendicant foreign policy, the crime may draw a political rather than a judicial decision. Even Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez already showed bias in favor of the Marines early on in the case,” Ang-See said in her column in the Chinese- Filipino digest Tulay.
She cited the case of a female government lawyer assigned to the four accused whom she saw laughing with them, especially during that part of the trial when the complainant was sobbing while testifying.
Heck, even Dept. of InJustice Sec. Raul Gonzalez was hostile to Nicole and said the rape was all part of her imagination.
Another classic Gonzalezism:
In an interview with reporters in his office at the Department of Justice (DOJ), Gonzalez said he would have dismissed the cases against US Marine Lance Corporals Keith Silkwood and Dominic Duplantis and Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier if not for mob rule.*rolleyes*
"I almost exonerated them. But I didn't, if only to satisfy the mob," the DOJ secretary said.
PDI Editorial on the genius of DOJ Sec. Raul Gonzalez.
Related:
- Gov't prosecutor calls "Nicole" crazy
- Prosecutor offered US migration to settle Rape case
- Prosecutor Jalandoni in Subic rape case quits
- Task Force Subic Rape hails Prosecutor Hazel Valdez for speaking out on the cancellation of the rebuttal
- ‘Dissenting’ fiscal Hazel Valdez removed from rape trial
More: DJB criticizes Nicole's so called "friends and supporters" for "using" her and turning the trial into a "political circus."
And he also wrote this:
In the Subic Bay Rape Case, the alleged rape victim is only known to the public by the alias, "Nicole", and from glimpses of her entering or leaving the Court with her head fully covered. I think it is a terrible thing that the stigma of rape causes most victims to hide their identity. It is Nicole's legal right to do so, but I think it weakened her case and did nothing to actually keep her identity private. I have no curiosity about her personal identity and circumstances. On the other hand, there is surely a stigma attached to being a Rapist, too. I thought it certainly strengthened Daniel Smith's case that he made defended himself before the Unblinking Eye of television (and Tina Monson Palma) and forthrightly said that his greatest and only defense was the plain truth.
Later, in another post, Nicole's identity is revealed. There's debate about whether this is a smart thing or not.
Here's a back-and-forth discussion between Rizalist and Anna about revealing Nicole's identity:
HILLBLOGGER & Hillblogger Jr said...
Is it necessary to reveal the real identity of the rape victim?
10:49 PM, December 04, 2006
Rizalist said...
Hillblogger,
She was shown on television standing in the Makati RTC along with the defendants as the Decision of the Court was read out loud. It was the first I had heard her real name, which was broadcast on AM/FM radio stations carrying the promulgation live, as well as ABSCBN and GMA.
I guess I must be the last to know her real name.
10:53 PM, December 04, 2006
HILLBLOGGER & Hillblogger Jr said...
Pity, RP news media could have spared her a potentially new damaging ordeal by keeping her real ID secret for as long as possible.
Breaking news in Europe by AP, The Times, The Independent, etc. containing a comprehensive report were careful NOT to mention her real ID.
Looking at google news, mga arab at pakistani papers (5 overall so far) pa lang ang nag-reveal ng pangalan ni "nicole".
Blogsearch results on Nicole's real name here, may mas nauna pa kay DJB, but they thought that was nicole's mother's name.
Abs-cbn and Manila Times have outed her as early as nov. 6 2006, believe it or not.
sa blog naman ng subic rape case, if you use the search box, wala yung totoong pangalan ni "Nicole" doon.
MORE: DJB explains himself.
Previous: Fr. James Reuter: “I think it was seduction. She was 22 and Danny was 19. The only one accused of touching her is Danny, the baby boy.” Ducky Paredes responds to Reuter.
UPDATE: From the Tribune Editorial: No vindication for state lawyers
State prosecutors in the ?Nicole? rape case, commenting on the guilty verdict laid down by Makati City Regional Trial Court Judge Benjamin Pozon on Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith, said they have been vindicated, as they had been branded by Nicole and her lawyer as incompetent and other names besides.
But vindicated they certainly were not, if one follows the way the court case was handled every step of the way, which may explain why the three US Marines who were with Smith, walked.
Pozon acquitted the three on grounds that the prosecutor failed to prove the charges against them.
If Smith was convicted, it was mainly due to the excellent handling of the case by Evalyn Ursua, Nicole?s private lawyer. It was she who had argued the case at the start. It was she who got the experts, and she who tracked down the independent witnesses. It was she who wanted the Filipino van driver and the three other Marines included as accessories, or accomplices to the crime.
The facts will bear out that it was the Department of Justice Secretary, Raul Gonzalez, no doubt, getting his orders from Gloria Arroyo, who insisted on letting the three, as well as the van driver, off the hook, as accessories and refused to move against them. This was one of the reasons the Subic prosecutor quit the case early on.
Ursua was actually fighting for her client?s case and against the state prosecutors who appeared to be doing everything to lose this case against the accused Americans.
It will be recalled that close to the final stretch of the prosecution?s time to prove its case, where Ursua wanted the American investigators called to the witness stand to refute certain statements made in court by the defense, this move was blocked by Gonzalez?s state prosecutors, and Ursua was, from then on, not made to take on the lead role.
It will also be recalled that the state prosecutors did such bad job at cross-examining the defense witnesses, which to most, appeared to have been deliberate.
It was also at about this time that the animosity between the private prosecutor and Gonzalez?s state lawyers surfaced publicly and the same time when Nicole?s mother blurted out to the press of an offer of settlement from the state prosecutors. It was also then it was discovered that the state prosecutors were doing their own thing without any consultation with Nicole or her private lawyer.
Even one of the state prosecutors balked at this move from her colleagues and went public with it, corroborating Nicole and her mother?s charges.
And when this disclosure hit the front pages, with Nicole asking Gonzalez for a change of the prosecution team, there was Gonzalez once again, saying Nicole had no business asking for anything from government, as this was not her case, but a case of the Philippines against the accused servicemen.
It was not surprising then that only Smith was convicted (and no thanks to the government), while the three walked free, even when it was clear that they were accomplices. How could the three other Marines not have been accomplices, when they were in that van when the rape of Nicole was going on, and did nothing to stop Smith from sexually assaulting her? What are they, perverts, watching a live rape? They were at the bar with Smith. They knew she was drunk and could not have possibly given her consent to having sex with Smith. And they dumped her, in her state of dishabille.
But from the start, it was evident that this was a case the Arroyo government wanted to lose, since it knew that this would be yet another situation which would create more friction between the two governments, no matter the diplomatese used for media purposes. The Arroyo government did not fight for custodial rights over the accused Americans when it could have done so early on. It could still fight for this, but already, even before the US asked for it, the RP government was already insisting that the US should have custody of Smith.
Malacanang, after the verdict, claimed that this was a triumph of democracy and the rule of law, adding that the conviction of Smith would not put a strain on RP-US relations.
Tell that to the Marines. When it comes to the US government, it does not want any of its accused citizens abroad, especially in the Philippines, touched by the courts. This is why Rod Strunk, the husband of Nida Blanca, isn?t being extradited. And this is also the reason the US government refuses to be a signatory to the International Criminal Court.
Smith is not going to serve time in a Philippine jail, that is for sure. And the Philippine government will make sure to this, because this is what the US wants.
Malaca?? should stop this crap about democracy and the rule of law or triumph of justice.
Smith was convicted, not because of the Arroyo government?s efforts, but despite its moves to lose the case.
Posts
4 comments:
i don't think it was completely just, but the 3 marines are now out of the country... and i doubt if they'd be remanded back here if they were to be charged on appeal.
John,
Anna took up the fight in my behalf. I emailed her my sentiments regarding DJB's post. Human decency dictates that we must protect and preserve the privacy of a rape victim. We must differentiate ourselves from the media vultures whose only concern is being the first to a scoop. We are decent human beings. Jon Mariano and Purple Phoenix in fact removed Nicole's real name after I suggested it to them. DJB has exposed his pro-American leanings and exposing Nicole's name may be a way for him to to avenge the conviction. I am glad that you are one of those who have given Nicole her private life back by using her court-appointed pseudonym.
schums, the funny thing is, i like and support many things about the US. i even support many of their policies (like Iraq, WOT, their presence here),
but i really have no loyalties or attachments to the US, and nicole deserves "absolute justice" vs. the 4 US servicemen.
I agree John, its imperative that absolute justice be served. The acquittal of the 3 other marines could lead to an acquittal of Smith in the appellate court. All 4 marines should fry.
Post a Comment