In an interview, the woman, known only as "Nicole," said Lance Corporal Daniel Smith’s testimony revealed a "deliberate move to scrap all evidence and information" that she was "highly intoxicated" when she was allegedly raped in a moving van at Subic Bay Freeport on Nov. 1 last year.
It was not true that she initiated any kissing or sexual intercourse, she added.
Nicole expressed outrage over Smith’s totally different story that pictured her as the aggressive one on the night of the alleged rape.
"He’s a liar," she said.
Nicole said had the court allowed Smith to approach her when he was asked to identify the woman whom he had sex with on Nov. 1, 2005, she would have attacked him.
"Worse comes to worst, kahit na makita ni judge kung ano ang gagawin ko sa kanya, sasapakin ko siya (Even if the judge would see it, I would hit him)," she said.
In yesterday’s hearing, another US Marine, Lance Corporal Justin Michael Bamberger testified that on Nov. 3, 2005, he received a text message from Nicole that the reported (rape) was just a "stupid rumor."
Appearing as the defense’s second witness, Bamberger identified himself as a close friend of Nicole’s, who denied to him in text messages that she was raped.
However, eight hours later, he said he received another text message from Nicole asking him to pray for her because she was the reported rape victim.
During trial, a heated argument transpired between the prosecutors and defense lawyers after State Prosecutor Hazel Decena-Valdez objected to a defense request for a recess.
On direct examination, Smith’s lawyer Benjamin Formoso asked a question which was deemed unfavorable to the defense, prompting the other lawyers of the US Marines to ask for a break.
Valdez opposed the move on grounds that it would delay the proceedings.
"The last question before the recess was, what happened after he received the text message from Nicole, saying that she was raped and that was answered by Bamberger saying he became worried for his friend," Valdez told reporters.
When asked what was wrong with Formoso’s question, Valdez said it is very favorable to the prosecution.
Information also circulated that government prosecutors had "clashed" with the private prosecutor before the trial had begun.
STAR sources said private prosecutor Evalyn Ursua will no longer be allowed to cross-examine any witness for the rest of the trial.
What happened last Monday where Ursua was stopped from asking Smith more questions was allegedly a preview of how the rest of the trial would be handled.
Under the Rules of Court, Ursua, as private prosecutor, can only conduct direct and cross-examinations if authorized by the government prosecutors.
During trial, defense lawyer Francisco Rodrigo accused Ursua of acting "in a way that she was slapping the face of the government prosecutors."
Ursua said the government prosecutors owe it to Nicole and to the public to confirm or deny the information.
Senior State Prosecutor Emilie Fe de los Santos denied that Ursua will no longer be allowed to cross-examine any witnesses until the end of the trial.
"It’s simply not true," she told The STAR, noting however that the authority is with the government prosecutors and it is up to the panel if it will authorize a private lawyer to cross-examine a witness.