As the prosecution panel in the Subic rape case trial ends its presentation of witnesses and evidence, its lawyers are confident that they have pieced out the puzzle showing the four accused U.S. Marines guilty.

BY JHONG DELA CRUZ
Bulatlat.com

Prosecution lawyers in the Subic rape case ended their presentation on Aug. 17, with a police expert confirming that the DNA sample found in the Filipina victim’s underwear indeed belonged to principal accused Lance Corporal Daniel Smith.

Lead prosecutor Evalyn Ursua expressed confidence their evidences and the witnesses’ testimonies had pieced out the puzzle of the fateful Nov. 1, 2005 when four U.S. Marines allegedly raped a 22-year-old Filipino woman.

Also accused with Smith are Lance Corporals Dominic Duplantis and Keith Silkwood and Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier.

23rd witness

The prosecution presented its 23rd witness, Sr. Inspector Edmar dela Torre who conducted the matching of both DNA samples extracted from the victim’s panties and Smith’s blood.

Tested at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, Dela Torre said the samples were of “primary match,” resulting in a 10 percent accuracy rate. The DNA sample obtained from the victim’s underwear had not been contaminated, bearing no such indication during the test, dela Torre told the court.

The analyst received the samples on June 26 from the evidence custodian. His findings, he told the court, revealed that the “DNA is that of Daniel Smith.” The defense refused to further ask questions during the cross-examination.

Meanwhile, before the police analyst took the witness stand, the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 139 recalled Dr. Rolando Ortiz, medico-legal officer at the James L. Gordon Hospital who examined “Nicole” on Nov. 3, 2005.

The court had ordered Ortiz to testify again to explain the history-taking procedure he had conducted with “Nicole.” The procedure involves inquiring about past and present sexual relationships of victims of sexual assault.

Ursua opposed this saying having sex in the past would not indicate that there was no rape because the assault could happen even inside a marriage. She cited section 6 of the Rape Shield Law which said that “in prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or his/her reputation, shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.”

Fishing expedition

The victim, a Zamboanga native, told the doctor she last had a consensual sexual intercourse with her boyfriend two years ago, Ortiz said.

The defense argued old-healed lacerations in both sides of the labia minora, if proven there had been such activity before the alleged rape, the findings might change in the medico-legal procedure.

But Ursua asked the court to reconsider the question saying the defense panel is engaged in a “fishing expedition” because the answer might have no boundaries and that this would only “humiliate” the complainant.

 Save as PDF