Criticizing the Smith CA ruling

The adverse reaction of militant groups and politicians against the Court of Appeals decision promulgated last April 23 acquitting L/Cpl. Daniel J. Smith of the crime of rape is expected. But except for the lawyers of the protagonists in the case, all those assailing the decision and the appellate court in all probability have not read the 71-page decision. Most of these critics are not even lawyers competent to analyze and comment on a court decision.

Assailing a judicial ruling without reading it is, especially on the part of politicians, histrionics. A court decision whether of a lower or higher court, is a document containing a set of facts based on evidence submitted, an analysis of the facts and a reasoned application of the pertinent law and jurisprudence leading to a resolution of the issues and the court’s ruling. Thus, commenting on and assailing a court decision without reading it is akin to playing literary critic without having read the story being criticized.

In the Daniel J. Smith rape case the issue is whether as alleged in the information or complaint filed against the accused, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, as required by law, that Smith raped the complainant. Nationalism, the rights of Filipino women and the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) are irrelevant to the factual and legal issues of the case. They are nothing but shibboleths for grandstanding.

The 71-page decision of the Court of Appeals narrated and analyzed the evidence presented before Branch 139 of the Makati Regional Trial Court. Of the decision’s 71 pages, 26 pages dealt with the prosecution’s evidence and 19 pages with Smith’s evidence. In 20 pages of the decision the appellate court reasoned out its analysis of the facts and its application of the law and pertinent jurisprudence.

Of course, the complainant’s lawyer has the right to criticize the decision. No lawyer losing a case ever agrees with an adverse ruling. Unfortunately, for the complainant’s lawyer, her client recanted without even the courtesy of informing her, leaving her out in the cold. For the militants who railed against the Visiting Force Agreement (VFA), projecting the complainant as their heroine against the United States, it must be painfully disappointing for them to be deserted by their heroine to live in America with her Yankee boyfriend.

A reading of the court’s narration and analysis of the evidence of the protagonists, particularly on the complainant’s alleged drunkenness, the contusions on her forearm and private parts, the alleged rape inside the Starex van and the surrounding incidents – is best left to critics of the decision for them to intelligently comment on the ruling.

But it may interest readers to know the less than strictly legal opinion of the three women magistrates on the complainant. The three women magistrates said: “This court finds it deceptively posturing Nicole’s portrayal of herself as a demure provinciana lass going on a first-time vacation to Subic and expressed her disgust to see an American guy with a Filipino woman seated on his lap, cavorting in the bar and another couple kissing amid those people around in the club. We find that she meticulously laid this out because that was what she did later that night in Neptune Club. This was not rebutted by the prosecutor. On hindsight, we see this protestation of decency as a protective shield against her own indecent behavior when she did exactly that as testified by Smith himself in a straight-forward manner and affirmed by Carpenter and Silkwood. Her going to Subic from far away Zamboanga with her step-sister, allowing two American friends whom they met only about three months earlier and accepting their offer of free hotel accommodations and other things as well, in her words – to enjoy, do not coincide with the demure provinciana lass we are talking about.”

There are those who may not like what the decision said about the alleged rape — that it “was the unfolding of a spontaneous unplanned romantic episode with both parties carried away by their passion and stirred up by the urgency of the moment caused probably by alcoholic drinks they took, only to be rudely interrupted when the van suddenly stopped to pick up some passengers.” But this opinion is necessary to explain the incidents that started at the Neptune Club leading to the alleged rape inside the Starex van.

Pertinent to the merit of the ruling acquitting Daniel J. Smith is the track record and reputation of the three women magistrates who penned the decision, Justice Monina Arevalo Zeñarosa who wrote the decision, Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando, and Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal. All the three magistrates are career jurists with 34, 45 and 32 years respectively of government service. Zeñarosa and Vidal were government prosecutors before they joined the judiciary as RTC judges while Fernando served as MTC judge in Pampanga, LTFRB chair and Comelec commissioner before joining the Court of Appeals in 1999. But more important than their long years of public service is their reputation for integrity, competence, strength of character and fierce independence of mind. Among their colleagues in the Court of Appeals, no one believes the imputation that they were pressured to acquit Smith.

Don’t get me wrong. I too, was aghast by the news of this rape case in 2005 and felt the same way as how the present protesters feel about Daniel Smith. I felt sorry for Nicole as the victim of this mess. But on hindsight, after hearing of Nicole’s departure to the United States and now knowing that she has decided to start a life there — my view has taken a full 360 degree swing. The sudden turn of events have made me quite skeptical about this whole telenovela. Now I wonder why the protesters are still at it. Has this become another case of our kababayans taking advantage of the recent events that have transpired?

Labor Day (May 1) is just around the corner and it has been a tradition in this country that during this holiday protesters go out in the streets to rally about a certain issue. But then again do these people really know and understand what they are clamoring about? But hey! This is a free country ain’t it? Freedom of expression is a human right. But we must remember that too much freedom without limits and without responsibility will surely destroy the fabric of this nation. Once in awhile we should learn to elevate ourselves in facing issues instead of joining a bandwagon and not knowing why we are in it.