Rape in Philippine jurisprudence is considered a
criminal offense punishable by
life imprisonment. The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which amended the previous definition of rape as defined in the
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines of 1930, defines the crime of rape as follows: On December 4, 2006, based on the evidences and witnesses' testimonies during the trial, the Makati Regional Trial Court found Lance Corporal Daniel Smith guilty of rape against Nicole. Under article 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, The custody issue was brought up by the US embassy in Manila and the Philippine Justice and Foreign Affairs departments. An agreement was then signed that as the case was not final and closed because it could be brought up to the
Philippine Court of Appeals, the custody of Smith should be transferred back to the US embassy in keeping with the provisions of the VFA. The Makati Regional Trial Court reiterated its decision to detain Smith at the
city jail temporarily. The custody issue was brought up to the Philippine
Court of Appeals and on January 4, 2007, the court said that the dispute could not be decided upon because a new agreement that had resulted in Smith's midnight transfer back to the US Embassy had rendered the case
moot. The agreement referred was that signed by Philippine
Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo and
US Ambassador Kristie Kenney on December 22 stating that Smith should be held at the US Embassy compound. Smith was transferred back to the US Embassy on December 29—seven days after the agreement had been signed. The appellate court also affirmed Judge Benjamin Pozon's decision to detain Smith at the city jail temporarily. The court upheld Philippine exclusive jurisdiction over a convict and that the convict should be detained in a Philippine facility. By this decision, the court asserted the power of the
Philippine government over US troops. As much as the court found itself disagreeing with the
executive branch of the Philippine Government and the US Embassy on the custody issue, it decided to leave it up to the government to decide. The quote, apparently, originated from a dissenting opinion written by Justice
John M. Harlan II, wherein he quoted Holmes as if the word "legislatures" meant the "other branches of the Government". While the appellate court found the case moot, in the sense of "not worthy of consideration or discussion because it has been resolved or no longer needs to be resolved", others believe that the case is still open for discussions and debates. In June 2008, the
Manila Times reported that, due to the scheduled mandatory June 27 retirement of Associate Justice Agustin Dizon, the reviewing justice of the Court of Appeals 16th Division, which is handling the rape case, the hearings may have to start from the beginning after a replacement reviewing justice is assigned. Quoting sources at the court, the
Times said, "'The new reviewing justice can't just take over the notes and draft report of the case. He or she will have to start from scratch,' the source explained.". The
Times explained, "hearings may have to start from the beginning to avoid possible accusations of partiality by the new justice assigned." The
Times also reported that case has become so controversial that appellate justices seem to be avoiding it. One after another, justices assigned to the 16th division have recused themselves from the case. According to the
Times, Associate Justice Vicente Veloso quit as head of that division because his daughter is a member of the law firm defending Smith; Associate Justice Celia Librea-Leagogo recused herself, citing her friendship with one of the lawyers of Smith; Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr., was expected to recuse himself because he wrote a Court of Appeals decision on the custody of Smith. Finally, the
Times reported speculation that the decision would likely turn in favor of Smith because of President Gloria Arroyo's upcoming US trip, where she is scheduled to meet with President George W. Bush. This led to a surprise visit to the embassy by the head of the presidential commission on the Visiting Forces Agreement, which confirmed that Smith was still in detention there. On September 19, 2008, attorneys representing Nicole's filed an indirect
contempt motion against the government's transfer of Smith from
Makati city jail in December 2006, to the
Embassy of the United States in Manila. During the oral arguments, Associate Justice Presbeterio Velasco raised the possibility that the petitioners represented by Agabin could be liable for
forum shopping because they had also filed another petition related to the Smith case before the Court of Appeals. Agabin said his clients’ complaint before the Supreme Court was different from that before the appellate court. During those arguments Pacifico Agabin, attorney for the petitioners, argued the questions (1) whether the right to custody of Daniel Smith during the pendency of his appeal belongs to the Philippine government or US authorities and (2) whether there was contempt of court committed in the transfer of the accused from the custody of the courts to that of the US authorities pending appeal. The petition also argued that the agreement between Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and US Ambassador to the Philippines Kristie Kenney transferring the custody of Smith to US authorities was unconstitutional, and contended that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) violates the exclusive power of the Philippine Supreme Court to promulgate rules and procedures in all courts under the 1987 Constitution. On February 11, 2009, The
Supreme Court of the Philippines sitting
en banc decided 9-4 "The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998, is UPHELD as constitutional, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006 are DECLARED not in accordance with the VFA, and respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs is hereby ordered to forthwith negotiate with the United States representatives for the appropriate agreement on detention facilities under Philippine authorities as provided in Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA, pending which the status quo shall be maintained until further orders by this Court." ==Implications==