by Nina Somera

Alas the fears of Philippine women's movements came true.

On 22 April 2009, the Philippine Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the earlier decision that convicted United States soldier Daniel Smith for raping a Filipina, known to the public as “Nicole.” Three women justices of the Court of Appeals penned the decision, pointing out that what transpired was not rape but rather a “spontaneous, unplanned romantic episode.”

Although women's groups were not surprised by the decision, they were outraged by the very interpretation of the CA of the events, particularly rape. They wrote, “...Reality dawned on Nicole—what her audacity and reckless abandon, flirting with Smith and leading him on, brought upon her....”

The decision failed to take into account the intoxication of Nicole as well as the testimonies of other witnesses.

Aida Santos, a member of Task Force Subic Rape and the Philippine Women’s Network for Peace and Security lamented: “How could you, Justices Fernando, Dimaranan-Vidal and Arevalo-Zenarosa believe the lies by the defense? Who swayed you?...It does not make sense. Ask anyone in the streets, in school, in communities. Ask the women. The evidence was overwhelming. And if science would be the sole basis, Smith raped Nicole.”

A drunk Nicole met Smith and three other US servicemen in a bar in Subic. She was hoisted into a van where she was raped by Smith as the three other soldiers cheered on. A male DNA found on Nicole's underwear matched with that of Smith. Nicole's bruises also indicated rape. Bartenders in Neptune Bar and a toxicologist also attested to the high levels of alcohols that Nicole consumed, preventing her from consenting to sex.

In a previous interview with Isis, Esperanza Santos remarked, “How come it is so easy to believe that Nicole lied? For most people, Nicole is still a loose woman who is punished for drinking. Yet boys are never questioned when they stay late at night and drink alcoholic beverages. The public also has a typical idea of rape. It could not appreciate that what happened was a rape show, that was why Smith’s fellow soldiers were cheering him on.”

Women's groups have also crticised the Philippine government, which demonstrated its submissiveness to the US even before the trial started. Just a week after his conviction, Smith was transferred from the city jail to the US embassy in Manila. A day or two after the release of the CA decision, Smith exited the country without leaving any trace in the records of the Philippine Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. His own Filipino counsel was likewise unaware of Smith's departure until the US embassy released a statement.

In her open letter to the three women CA justices, Aida Santos said, “After what you’ve done, do you expect women to be brave enough to report cases of rape or any other forms of violence?... At the end of the day, the nation lost the case... And the winner is the United States of America, the military establishment....”

Sources:
Dalangin-Fernandez and Tetch Torres. (23 April 2009). “Palace, US hand seen in Smith acquittal. ”  
GMA News Research. (nd). “Subic Rape Case Witnesses. ” 
Pazzibugan, Donna and Tetch Torres. (22 April 2009). “US Marine in Subic rape case acquitted. ”  
Santos, Aida F. (26 April 2009). “An Open Letter to Associate Justices Remedios Fernando (chair), Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa of the Philippine Court of Appeals.”
Somera, Nina. (14 April 2009). “Baffling: New Twist in the Subic Rape Case May Renew RP-US Military Agreement. ”