Nicole Scores
March 19, 2009
The big news of the week is that Nicole a.k.a. The Girl Raped by a Gwapo US serviceman a.k.a Suzette Nicolas, allegedly recanted her statement regarding the alleged rape. The “recantation” was done thru an affidavit which the Philippine Daily Inquirer printed in full on the front page.
Taking a long, hard look at Nicole’s affidavit, what it essentially says is that she is not sure if she was raped or not and that she may have led on Daniel Smith. She stops short of saying that she was not raped.
What is the effect of this affidavit in the rape case which is now pending before the Court of Appeals?
Paula’s comments in American Idol has more worth than this. In short, nothing. Zero. Zilch.
In an appeal, the appellate court will only examine and review the evidence presented on trial. It will not examine new evidence. This new affidavit of Nicole is new evidence as it was executed after Smith was convicted, and hence, was never presented in court. Even supposing for the sake of argument, that the Court of Appeals decides to look at this “recantation”, it will still have no effect on the case as it does not really say anything definite. All it says is are points which the defense might have raised during trial and in appeal. Also, Nicole has to appear before the court and testify regarding her execution of the said affidavit. In a TV interview with Nicole’s mother, she said that Nicole has already left for the US to start a new life and she no longer wants to “get involved” in the case. If Nicole will not appear in court to testify on her new affidavit, it is inadmissible in evidence. Neither can the notary public be presented as he can only testify as to what Nicole told him, not as to whether or not Nicole was telling the truth. To illustrate, I could execute an affidavit saying that I am married to Piolo Pascual. Yet I refused to present the marriage certificate or to take the witness stand and say that Piolo and I are married. Even if the one who notarized my affidavit was presented, all he can say is that I said to him that I am married to Piolo and that I said that it is true. He cannot say if I am actually married to Piolo.
Also, it seems that the lawyer who notarized Nicole’s affidavit is connected with the law firm that represents Smith. And that Nicole received 100,000.00 pisos from Smith. These casts doubts on the truthfulness of Nicole’s “recantation” as she may have been unduly influenced to execute the said affidavit. The money is said to represent the amount the RTC determined as damages to be paid to Nicole. But why should Smith already pay damages to Nicole when the case is still on appeal? By appealing the RTC’s decision, Smith is saying that he shold not have been convicted by the lower court. Is he now withdrawing his appealing and accepting the penalty imposed on him?
People are saying that they see Malacanang’s hand in this. That the affidavit will be used as a basis for a presidential pardon for Smith. That is neither here nor there. Pardon is within the powers that can be exercised at the will of the President. But for pardon to be exercised, there must be a conviction which is not appealed. And Nicole’s affidavit, without her testifying as to the truthfulness of it, is worth jacksh_t.
To sum the situation, Nicole was paid P100,000.00 to execute an affidavit which says nothing and has no effect in the appealled rape case. Nicole- 1 , everybody- 0.
All comments are moderated. Your comments will not appear here unless approved by the blog owner. Thank you.
