PRESS STATEMENT
18 March 2009

The so-called “affidavit of recantation” of Suzette S. Nicolas, formerly known as Nicole, and her departure for the United States “for good”, leave more questions than answers.

However, the legal situation remains that the rape case against Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith, which is a public crime, can prosper not withstanding the belated “affidavit of recantation” from the victim.

Nicole’s affidavit manifest facts consistent with her being raped by Smith, like the following:

1.     She was admittedly virtually unconscious when Smith had sex with her;
2.     She was too intoxicated to defend herself from Smith’s advances; and
3.     She is in doubt as to what transpired, but the physical evidence presented in court showed that Smith consummated sex with her and that her panties and the condom used in the intercourse had the “seminal stains of Smith” and that the DNA found on those stains “matched’ those from Smith’s blood.

The answers to the following questions can unravel a conspiracy to mock and derail the Philippine justice system, secure freedom for an American felon and preserve an improvident Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) which perpetuates American intervention in the Philippines :

1.     When did Nicole apply for an American visa?
2.     When was she granted a visa by the US Consular Service in the American Embassy in the Philippines ?
3.     Did this happen during the pendency of Smith’s appeal with the Court of Appeals?
4.     What kind of visa was issued to Nicole?
5.     If she was issued an immigrant’s visa so that she can stay in the United States for good, what entitles her to an immigrant’s visa?
6.     Did Nicole only receive P100,000.00 which is the equivalent of US $2,000.00? How can she stay in the United States for good with US $2,000.00?
7.     Who bought her ticket and from what airlines?
8.     Who was her traveling companion?

Moreover, the payment of damages by Smith to Nicole is a badge of guilt. Why should an accused appealing his conviction pay damages if he is not liable for the crime he has been convicted for?