'Nicole' statement won’t hold water, DOJ chief, experts say

MANILA, Philippines - It won’t hold water. Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and legal experts are one in saying that the statement of “Nicole" won’t necessarily work in favor of Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith who was convicted for raping a 23-year-old Filipina in 2005. According to Gonzalez, it is unlikely that the Court of Appeals – where Smith lodged his appeal – will be influenced by Nicole’s statement and get the US serviceman off the hook. Lawyers agree. They say that while the statement could have weakened Nicole’s accusations against Smith, it remains a mere scrap of paper without any value as evidence. “Duda akong magkakaroon ng malaking impact ‘yan sa asunto sa CA. But for whatever the consideration is, meron s’yempreng effect sa kaso. But I doubt if the impact will be very strong," said Gonzalez on Wednesday in an interview with GMA Network’s “Unang Balita." [I doubt if Nicole’s statement would have a big impact on the appeal at the CA. But of course, for whatever the consideration is, it will have an impact on the case. But I doubt if the impact will be strong.] Gonzalez said Nicole’s statement did not contain any “newly discovered evidence" that would merit the reopening of the Subic rape case. If the statement is a recantation, it should have been presented long ago when the case was still at its trial stage, according to the secretary. Recantation? Legal experts interviewed by GMANews.TV on Wednesday claimed that while Nicole could have doubted that she was raped by Smith, there was nothing in her five-page statement on March 12 that would attest that she recanted her accusations against the American. “Recantation means you reversed your previous statement through executing an affidavit na binabawi mo na ang dati mong sinabi sa [that you are taking back what you said before in your] previous affidavit," said lawyer Neri Javier Colmenares, secretary general of the National Union of People’s Lawyers. Colmenares, however, said that in her statement, Nicole did not categorically say that she was not raped by Smith. "She only doubted if she was indeed raped by Smith because she was intoxicated," Colmenares said. In the statement, Nicole said she "possibly lost (her) inhibitions" and became "intimate" with Smith, after drinking "alcoholic mixed drinks" with him when they met at a bar in Subic, Olongapo City on Nov. 1, 2005. This was also the position of lawyer Marlon Manuel, head of the Alternative Law Groups, who said that “recantation means that you are retracting your previous testimony or your earlier affidavit." Retract rape claim Manuel said that in the case of Nicole, she could retract on two things: (1) about the identity of the rapist and (2) about her not being raped. “She could say that it wasn’t Smith who raped her or she could say na hindi pala ako na-rape [that I wasn’t raped after all]," said Manuel. In the statement, Nicole did not say that it wasn’t Smith who raped her. She also did not take back her previous statement that she was raped. Lawyer Kristine Eugenio of the nongovernment group Kaisahan Tungo sa Kaunlaran ng Kanayunan at Repormang Pansakahan echoed Colmenares and Manuel’s position. “Ang ibig sabihin ng recantation ay pagbawi ng charges [Recantation means withdrawing your charges]. Technically, it is called affidavit of desistance if it is submitted in court," said Eugenio. Nevertheless, while Nicole’s statement is not tantamount to recantation, it has the intention of “casting doubt on the guilt of Smith," according to Eugenio. The criminal offense slapped on Smith requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. The lawyers also claim that Nicole’s statement so far has no legal weight. “It will remain as a mere scrap of paper if it is not submitted in court and the court does not see that it has evidentiary value," said Colmenares. Colmenares said that if the statement had already been submitted in court, the document would still undergo scrutiny to determine whether it was "executed for a favor or was made under duress." Arroyo-Obama talk Gonzalez bristled at speculations that the entire thing stemmed from the phone conversation between President Arroyo and US President Barack Obama last weekend. “Paano mag-aaregluhan eh nasa husgado na yan. Nasa CA na. That is an insult to the CA, na mag-assume tayo dahil nag-aregluhan si Gloria at Obama, pwede mo lang ibalewala ang korte? I think that is an insult to the court. Masyadong wild na imagination ng nag-speculate niyan," Gonzalez said. [How can a deal be struck when the case is already in court, at the CA. That is an insult to the CA, to assume that Arroyo and Obama reached a deal and bypassed the court. That is an insult to the court. Those behind such speculations have such wild imaginations] Also, Gonzalez turned his ire on the complainant’s camp, saying being tired and frustrated with the wait for justice was a “flimsy" excuse, especially after Nicole caused division among Filipinos. “Para sa akin that’s a very flimsy reason kung talagang nabiktima siya. And I am not happy with that because ang kanyang asunto has actually split the country, divided the country, and created so much problems for the government and for the people of this country. Pagkatapos e yan pala tatalikuran niya ang nangyari yan tapos sasabihin niya ginamit niya for herself. I am not happy with that, he said. [To me that is a very flimsy reason. I am not happy with her because her accusations divided the nation, then she turns her back on everything. I am not happy with that.] “Well it can," he said when asked if the case could affect future cases. “Pwede mo rin sabihin [You can also say] she was manipulated by her lawyers who want to gain publicity," he added. The US Embassy in Manila is consulting with American government legal experts in Washington, DC, on the case, embassy spokeswoman Rebecca Thompson said. She refused to comment on reports that the woman had gone to the United States. - GMANews.TV