|
Saturday, July 22, 2006
SC seeks reply from judge, Subic rape suspects over deadline
THE Supreme Court (SC) on Friday ordered Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Benjamin Pozon and the four US servicemen charged in the rape of a Filipino woman in Subic Freeport in November last year to comment on the victim's petition to strike down a provision in the Philippines-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) for being unconstitutional.
In a one-page resolution, the SC en banc gave due course on the petition filed by the lawyers of "Nicole (the court assigned name of the victim)" assailing the legality of Article 5, Paragraph 6 of the VFA that requires the parties in a criminal offenses to finish proceedings within the one-year prescription period.
"Acting on the special civil action for certiorari, the court resolved, without giving due course to the petition, to require the respondents to comment thereon within 10 days from notice hereof," the SC said in a resolution dated July 11 but was released by the court only Friday.
The victim's private counsel Evalyn Ursua asked last June 19 the SC to issue an "alias warrant of arrest" against principal accused Lance Corporal Daniel Smith and co-accused Keith Silkwood, Dominic Duplantis and Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier, who were all participants in the joint military exercises conducted last year pursuant to the VFA.
The four were accused of conspiring to rape the 22-year-old victim on Nov. 1, 2005 inside the Subic Bay Freeport.
"For the trial court to exercise effective jurisdiction over the criminal case, it must have custody over the person of the accused," the petitioner said.
In their petition, prosecutors asked the high court to take another look at the VFA on the basis of a criminal case even though it has already ruled on the constitutionality of the treaty.
"The court has not had the occasion to examine the validity of this provision as applied to a criminal case for rape where the substantive rights of the offended party are directly affected," the private prosecutor said.
Ursua said the SC ruled in the VFA cases which were brought by taxpayers, legislators and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), all of whom were found to be devoid of legal standing but were nevertheless allowed to assail the constitutionality of the VFA "in view of the transcendental importance of the issues raised in their petitions."
Article 5 Paragraph 6 of the VFA states that the "custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings.
US military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been charged."
The provision further states that "in extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall take into full account."
In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph.
"The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so," the provision further stated.
But the petitioner claimed that the provision violates her right to equal protection of the laws being the victim in the case.
"Article V, paragraph 6 of the VFA infringes petitioner's right to the equal protection of the laws with it prescribes a different rule for the arrest and custody of US military personnel charged with the commission of an offense cognizable by the Philippine courts. This places those US military personnel in a privileged position as compared to Filipino citizens similarly situated, who must be governed by our Rules of Criminal Procedure," Ursua said.
The petitioner also asked the high court to set aside the ruling of Judge Pozon dated May 5, 2006, denying their petition to declare Article 5, Paragraph 6 as unconstitutional.
She likewise urged the SC to rule that the one-year prescription period under Article 5 Paragraph 6 should start from arraignment.
Pozon earlier ruled that the one-year countdown on the Subic rape case commenced on December 27 last year when the case was raffled to Olongapo RTC Branch 73 Judge Renato Dilag. (ECV/Sunnex)
(July 22, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
