|
Friday, August 18, 2006
Test shows US soldier's DNA in woman's underwear
MANILA -- A forensic examiner of the PNP Crime Laboratory and the last witness of the prosecution in the Subic rape case revealed in Thursday's hearing that the DNA profile found on the complainant's underwear matched the blood sample from accused Lance Corporal Daniel Smith.
Senior Inspector Edmar de la Torre, a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analyst, revealed his finding during the hearing on the case presided by Branch 139 Judge Benjamin Pozon of the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The underwear was reportedly the one the complainant was wearing when Smith alleged raped her while his companions cheered him on at the Subic Bay Freeport in Olongapo City in November last year.
Smith had earlier admitted having sex with the complainant but said it was consensual.
After over two months of trial and 23 witnesses, the prosecution on Thursday rested its case against the four members of the US Marines accused of raping a 22-year-old Filipino woman last year inside a former US naval base with the testimony of a medico-legal officer and a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analyst.
"The DNA profile matched or is the same as that of Daniel Smith," said de la Torre, adding that they utilized 10 primer matches to reach the conclusion or more than the required nine matches to ensure reliability.
Earlier, another analyst of the Crime Laboratory, Francisco Supe Jr., testified that the female specimen found on the underwear is that of the victim Nicole (not her real name) based also on the blood sample she submitted for analysis.
A female specimen that matched Nicole's DNA was also found in the used condom allegedly used by Smith in consummating the alleged crime.
The sample was extracted from Smith last July 25 after the court denied his motion arguing against the submission of blood samples for DNA analysis though Pozon granted the motion of the other accused, Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier and Lance Corporals Dominic Duplantis and Keith Silkwood, for them not to submit the same sample.
In an extra-judicial confession made to the US Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), Smith said he had sex with the complainant on the night of November 1, 2005 but insisted it was consensual in nature. The prosecution said the complainant was too drunk to give her consent.
But the testimony of Dr. Rolando Ortiz, the prosecution's 22nd witness before the sala of Judge Pozon, was marred by a verbal exchange between the prosecution and the defense lawyers over the line of questioning the defense sought to elicit from the witness.
Under persistent objection by private prosecutor Evalyn Ursua, Attorney Antonio Rebusa, counsel of Duplantis, managed to elicit answers from the witness regarding the complainant's previous sexual history.
"She told me when I asked her she had previous sexual experience, that she had one two years ago but she did not answer me when I asked her with whom," Ortiz replied to the query of Rebusa if he asked her the standard questions mandated by the World Health Organization (WHO) for sexual assault victims about to undergo medical examination.
But Ursua objected to questions over whether the complainant has previous pregnancies saying that it goes against the original objective of the court in recalling Ortiz to the witness stand.
"The questions have no relevance at all. The defense counsel is espousing that a person who has previous sexual experience cannot claim she is raped. That line of questioning is meant to humiliate the complainant," said the lady prosecutor.
She likewise invoked Republic Act (RA) 8505, commonly known as the rape shield law, in objecting to the questions raised by the defense.
Ursua cited Section 6 of the law, which states that the court shall not allow the past complainant's sexual history to be asked unless it is relevant or material to the case.
"We objected since the questions being asked is broad, that it delved into the entire history of the complainant. This cannot and should not be admitted until the court ruled that it is relevant," she added.
But Rebusa insisted the questions were essential to the case.
The court then ruled the questioning should be limited only to "history-taking" and not on other issues.
Ortiz was recalled by the court for further cross-examination after Pozon reversed his earlier ruling and allowed the defense to ask questions concerning Nicole's reply to standard questions asked of rape complainants.
In his previous testimony, Ortiz told the court the injuries sustained by Nicole were consistent with that of rape victims.
With the prosecution wrapping up its case, the court set a two-week period for both parties to submit the formal offer of evidence while Pozon rescheduled the defense presentation of their first witness to September 4 to 11.
The controversial case is being closely watched in the country and has triggered calls for the abrogation of the 1998 RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) that governs the conduct of US military personnel in the country during training exercises.
The accused had just finished counter-terrorism maneuvers with their Philippine counterparts and were on temporary liberty when the alleged incident took place. If found guilty, they will be meted a prison term of a maximum of 40 years. (AH/Sunnex)
(August 18, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
