‘Nicole’ did not recant, legal experts say

MANILA, Philippines - “Nicole" did not recant, and her March 12 statement wherein she doubted if she was raped by Lance Corporal Daniel Smith so far has no legal weight, legal experts interviewed by GMANews.TV on Wednesday said. “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 Nicole’s five-page sworn statement, she 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," he said. In her statement, Nicole said that 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 November 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." 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 non-government 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." Eugenio agrees. She said that Nicole’s statement, which now is only like a “press release" could only have evidentiary value based on the “court’s appreciation." Evalyn Ursua, former lawyer of Nicole, claimed that Abraham Rey Acosta, who notarized Nicole's March 12 statement, is from the same law firm handling Smith's case. - GMANews.TV