Defense lawyers grill prosecution witnesses in Subic rape case

Defense lawyers again grilled two prosecution witnesses in an effort to destroy their credibility during yesterday’s hearing of the Subic rape case before the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC).

An evidence custodian and the chief of the Investigation Division of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority’s (SBMA) Intelligence and Investigation Office (IIO) took the witness stand at yesterday’s hearing.

On direct examination, both of them testified for the prosecution to strengthen the charges against Lance Corporals Daniel Smith, Dominic Duplantis and Keith Silkwood and Staff Sgt. Chad Carpentier.

But during cross-examination, lawyers of the four United States Marines managed to attack their credibility by accusing the first of mishandling evidence and the other of filing charges against six US Marines instead of only four because of a text message from "competent authorities."

IIO evidence custodian Genevieve Puno testified that she took custody of the victim’s denim pants, underwear, the Starex van where the alleged rape took place, a beer bottle, a travel booklet, a used condom, and an empty condom sachet.

The prosecution did not subject her to a direct examination after they and the defense panel stipulated why he was testifying and what she was there to prove, which is expected to expedite the proceedings.

Under cross-examination, Carpentier’s lawyer, Francisco Rodrigo, attacked Puno’s alleged failure to take care of the evidence properly and ensure that all items were secured to prevent contamination.

Rodrigo particularly criticized Puno for not refrigerating the condom, which the witness described as containing a "sandy and sticky" substance.

Puno was asked to narrate how the condom was wrapped and had difficulty remembering, but then related that the condom was kept in a piece of bond paper that was folded and stapled to seal it.

Rodrigo asked Puno to demonstrate how she opened the folded paper containing the condom and wrote a case number on the item without touching it.

IIO chief Paquito Torres was presented as the prosecution’s second witness. Torres had met the plaintiff, identified only as "Nicole," whom he pointed out in court, and was the first to interview Timoteo Soriano, the driver of the van, on Nov. 2, 2005.

Torres narrated how he came to know about the case, how he directed his men to handle the case, how she instructed a woman investigator named Elsie Cabral to interview the victim because she was uncomfortable with men and how he interviewed Soriano at the IIO office.

Torres said he remembered that Nicole had been crying, shaking, trembling and still in shock when he first met her: "Parang nawawala siya sa sarili (It was like she was going out of her mind)." He also told the court that Nicole had said her body was in pain, including her private parts.

Torres testified that he met with Soriano at 9:30 p.m. on Nov. 2, 2005, adding that Soriano spoke with a lot of people inside the administration room, including Zambales Rep. Mitos Magasaysay.

At 11 p.m., Torres said he spoke with Soriano again and helped Soriano give a sworn statement after he was read his rights.

Soriano’s statement, the first of two, related how he drove the van and reportedly said: "Sa tingin ko po ay pinagsasamantalahan nito ang babae (I believed they were raping the woman)."

Soriano told Torres that the US servicemen had been cheering during the incident, shouting "Go, Smith, Go!" He also told Torres that Duplantis, Silkwood and Carpentier were laughing out loud while Smith and the victim were in the back seat of the vehicle.

Soriano added that he could hear the victim shouting but could not make out what she was saying because the stereo was too loud, at which point he told Carpentier he was scared of what they were doing.

The prosecution confronted Torres with Soriano’s second affidavit made on Dec. 8 and eventually accused Torres of forcing him to sign the first sworn statement and punching Soriano twice in the back while threatening that if he didn’t sign it, he would be considered one of the suspects or accused.

"Pinasisinungalingan ko po yung binugbog ko siya. I deny. Pawang kasiningalingan po yan. Pawang voluntary, walang pamimilit whatsoever (I belie the statement that I beat him up. I deny. Those are a pack of lies. It was voluntary, without coercion)," Torres told the court when he was read specific portions of Soriano’s second affidavit.

On cross-examination, Silkwood’s lawyer, Jose Justiniano, focused his attack on the defense’s loopholes and inconsistencies, which Justiniano based mainly on a conversation between Torres and Olongapo City Prosecutor Prudencio Jalandoni during the preliminary investigation of the case.

Torres was asked why Soriano was not included among the accused, and Torres replied that Soriano was very cooperative "and I was told that he will be a witness."

During the preliminary investigation, Justiniano reminded Torres that Jalandoni had asked him why six US servicemen were being charged with rape.

The transcript of the conversation revealed that Torres answered that someone sent him a text message that six US servicemen were to be charged and that he could not divulge who had sent him the text message because that was confidential.

The original number of respondents to the case included Albert Lara and Corrie Burris, but their names were later dropped from the charge sheet. – Michael Punongbayan