Why protest the Daniel Smith acquittal?

Cory Aquino made an interesting quote about the Jun Lozada case---she is "urging those who support the truth to come out strongly with their own statements in support of Jun."

It is a paradoxical statement. To know the truth one has to first keep an open mind, acknowledge the possibilities of alternate hypotheses, before committing to a specific position. And even if one considers all the so-called facts, there is still the possibility of error. These so-called facts are many times simply anecdotes, some are even coming from second-hand sources and third-party experiences.

Do we really know what happened in the aborted NBN-ZTE deal?

Will we really ever know what happened?

To protest and rally for the truth is one thing. To protest and rally to force people to accept a specific claim is another thing. I am not surprised that people, especially militant activist groups, would rally without understanding the issues.

The situation with the Daniel Smith is such a situation.

We have zealous lynch mobs protesting the decision. I won't bother quoting all of them, but this snippet from Bulatbat.com probably summarizes the gist of their protests:

Joms Salvador, GABRIELA spokesperson said "The Court of Appeals betrayed the Filipinos. By acquitting Smith, they have trampled on the hard-fought justice of women in the Subic rape case and the fight of all Filipino to defend our dignity as a people."

No surprise also that these militant groups are claiming conspiracy theories:

"I was not exactly surprised by Smith's acquittal because when Nicole's affidavit came out last March, the stage has been set up for his acquittal. I deplore the grand scheme concocted by the US and Malacaňang meant to save Smith and justify VFA (Visiting Forces Agreement)," Gabriela Rep. Liza Maza said in a text message to GMANews.TV.

Through Filipino Voices, I read through the Court of Appeals decision, which weighs in at about 70 pages. I found it a fascinating case of "he-said, she-said," which basically boils down to "she said RAPE" and "he said CONSENT."

Her side of the story?

Then Smith pulled her wrist inviting her to go out because it was hot inside. She was waiting for her sister and declined, but he was insistent, so they went out for some fresh air.

Suddenly, she said, she became aware she was lying on her back and realized Smith was on top of her, kissing her while she cried.

Contrast this with Daniel Smith's side of the story:

Upon opening the door, Nicole stepped inside the van, and sat down at the back seat. [Daniel Smith] followed and sat down next to her at the back seat while Carpenter, Duplantis and Silkwood were seated in front and in the middle seat. There was no conversation between them except for a few words and then they started kissing again. The space was not enough and as the van started moving, they continued kissing, only more passionately. He initiated the kiss and Nicole responded, her hands on his back and herself leaning back towards the window pulling him towards her. Jokingly he asked her, "Can we have sex right here?" She said, yes and he sensed he was not joking, and he was kind of surprised. He started to get undressed and she did the same. So they both pulled their pants down to their ankles while he was reaching for his pocket to get his wallet with the condom in there. He took it out, removed its wrapper and put it on. Nicole was, in fact, assisting him by holding on his back. Then she leaned back to the window of the van and pulling him, they started having sex.

These two versions could not be more dissimilar.

Even the physical evidence is subject to misinterpretation. One would think that bruising would indicate force and thus rape. But Medico Legal officer Dr. Rolando Ortiz added that several contusions in her arms and left ankle as well as contusions on her labia "could also happen in consensual sex and could have been inflicted by finger grabs." Dr. Fortun, a forensic pathologist, also admitted that "injury in the vagina could also occur during consensual sex if the woman is not yet aroused, and her vagina is not lubricated."

I love it when activists toss out the usual rabble-rousing words like truth, justice, and dignity. But they fail to acknowledge one basic principle: the presumption of innocence.

It is fundamental that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact establishing guilt.

Every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed.

The defense of the accused even if weak, is no reason to convict.

The defense need not even speak at all.

I know that I can be dragged into a philosophical argument on truth and justice. It could be the truth that Daniel Smith indeed raped Nicole but was consequently acquitted because Nicole was portrayed as "indecorous." If that is the case, if it is true that Daniel Smith indeed raped Nicole, then yes it is an injustice to have Daniel Smith acquitted.

But life is not black-and-white. Nicole is far from the demure provinciana lass (no demure provinciana lass drinks half a pitcher of liquor from the pitcher itself). Daniel Smith is far from being an upright citizen and a model individual (though he was never portrayed as such). As I read through the document

There is one item glaring as well. The document completely disregards the alleged recantation of Nicole. Apparently, it was not needed. The appeal was meritorious enough even without her recantation. Perhaps she already knew that this would all go wrong for her?

But I also wonder why these militant groups continue to protest for their search for truth and justice and dignity. I honestly think that these militant groups have not taken any effort to read the document. Nicole recanted. The Court of Appeals has cast its judgement based on fundamental principles of law. There is no dispute. These militant groups should take their battle elsewhere. Justice has been served.

Comments

[First!]

Yes it is true that innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the supposed fundamentals in our justice system but when it comes to rape, for some reason, we have very strong laws for it or so I've heard from the press compared to other countries.