Judge Benjamin Pozon’s Decision in Subic Rape Case

LUCID INTERVAL
Judge Benjamin Pozon’s decision in the Subic Rape Case
By Rowena Guanzon
INQ7.net
Last updated 11:53pm (Mla time) 12/04/2006

IN 1997, before he became Chief Justice, Hilario Davide Jr. dissented together with Justice Florenz Regalado in the rape case of People of the Philippines versus Salarza, in which the accused who raped a young British woman was acquitted. Nine years later, the two justices’ dissenting opinion proved to be prophetic, whether Judge Benjamin Pozon of the Regional Trial Court of Makati has read that case or not.
In People versus Salarza, the then Associate Justices Davide and Regalado wrote that when a woman is deprived of reason or is unconscious, she is deemed to have no will. They differed from the majority in their interpretation or construction of the word “unconscious” by stating that “unconscious” cannot be tested by a physical standard only, i.e., whether one is awake or asleep, conscious or alert. The inquiry, the two justices opined, should “determine whether the victim was fully informed of all considerations so as to make a free and informed decision regarding the grant of consent.” Thus, the justices wrote that carnal knowledge with a sleeping woman is rape because the woman is completely unconscious.
In his landmark decision in People vs. Daniel Smith et al., consisting of 60 pages, Judge Benjamin Pozon convicted US Marine Corporal Daniel Smith citing proof of 14 circumstances which, taken together, overturned the constitutional presumption of innocence. Among these are: (1) Smith was the one who danced last with the complainant; (2) he was the one who brought her to the van; (3) he admitted having carnal knowledge with the complainant; (4) Smith and Corporal Keith Silkwood carried complainant out of the van; (5) complainant felt pain in her private parts; (6) complainant revealed the sexual assault to the guard at Neptune Club, to her stepsister, her boyfriend, her mother and the doctor who examined her; (7) her examination revealed contusions on different parts of arms and legs and her labia minora; (8) her panty had Smith’s seminal stains, and so did the condom.
But the final blow is in the following paragraph: “ All these taken into account, the court is morally convinced that accused Corporal Daniel Smith committed the crime charged. He admitted sexual intercourse with complainant whom he knew was intoxicated and rendered unconscious by the accumulated effects of the different alcoholic drinks she has taken in succession at the time of the felony. She could not have consented to the bestial act of the accused.”
With that, Judge Pozon ordered that Daniel Smith be imprisoned in the Makati City Jail until the governments of the United States and the Philippines have an agreement as to his place of detention pending appeal. Faster than the speed of light, the other three co-accused of Smith flew out of the country.
While there may have been no proof of conspiracy (that all the accused planned and acted concertedly in the rape), I disagree with the decision that the other three had no liability at all. At the least, their highest-ranking officer, Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier, should have been liable for damages, for he knew that there was a Filipino woman at the back of the van with whom Smith was having sexual contact (he said he believed it was consensual) yet he did not investigate or ask Smith any question. He testified that he thought she was a commercial sex worker, but his belief, which showed that he assumed that all Filipinas in Subic were sex workers, cannot get him off the hook because he had the duty to “investigate” what was going on at the back of the van. He had a duty to do something to ensure that his ward was not breaking the law, and that he failed to do. That he was focused on reaching their ship before curfew was a lame excuse. He knew what Smith was doing, and yet he presumed that it was a normal thing for his soldier to do?
I remember the movie “The Accused” starring Jodie Foster, who played a woman who was raped on a billiard table while many other men stood around, clapped and cheered. That movie was based on a true story in the United States. The judge convicted the rapist, but slapped civil liability (damages) to all the men who were present, who cheered the rapist on or did nothing. In our jurisdiction, in the case of People vs. Ritter, which was decided before Republic Act No. 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Act) was passed, the Supreme Court acquitted a foreigner who was accused of raping a prostituted child who died from an infection caused by a vibrator that was left inside her private parts. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the accused was liable for damages because he admitted having contact with a prostituted child.
Nevertheless, the decision of Judge Benjamin Pozon deserves our congratulations, for he appreciated the proof of 14 pieces of circumstantial evidence as sufficient to convict Smith beyond reasonable doubt, knowing that in rape, there are often no eyewitnesses. In this case, the other people present in the van were co-accused of Smith who naturally would stick to Smith’s story to save their skin.
Judge Benjamin Pozon’s decision also struck down myths about rape such as, that only “good women” could be raped, or that it was not rape because Nicole danced and drank with Smith and that she was “asking for it.” Instead of blaming the victim, Judge Pozon took Smith to task for the rape precisely because he knew that Nicole was very drunk and unconscious and Smith took advantage of that. The Supreme Court has ruled in many decisions that even sweethearts could be raped (People vs. Ylanan, penned by Justice Leo A. Quisumbing in 202). Even prostituted women could be raped. Even wives could be raped by their husbands (Republic Act No. 8353 on marital rape, and the decision of Judge Anthony Santos of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City). Certainly, a woman who is unconscious because she was intoxicated, could not have given her free will and informed consent.
Judge Benjamin Pozon did not cite Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.’s and Justice Florenz Regalado’s dissenting opinion in People vs. Salarza, but he has certainly brought it to life. We hope he finds many Justices in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court who are of similar minds.

Rowena V. Guanzon is the lead author of “Engendering the Philippine Judiciary” and “The Davide Court.” Both are published by the University of the Philippines Center for Women’s Studies Foundation Inc.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 5th, 2006 at 6:44 pm and is filed under VFA & Subic Rape, INQ7 Columns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.