MANILA, Dec. 4 — A Philippine court today convicted a United States marine accused of raping a Filipina, ending an emotional year-long case that tested Philippine-American relations and revived calls for the abrogation of a controversial defense agreement that is seen by many here as too lopsided in favor of Washington.
The court sentenced Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, 21, of St. Louis, to life imprisonment — which, in the Philippines, could mean up to 40 years in prison — for raping a drunken 23-year-old Filipina in November 2005 inside a former American naval facility in Subic, Pampanga, a province just north of Manila.
Three other marines — Lance Cpls. Keith Silkwood and Dominic Duplantis and Staff Sgt. Chad Carpentier, all of them marines, were acquitted. They had been accused of egging on Mr. Smith as he raped the Filipina inside a van.
“The court is morally convinced that Smith is guilty of having committed the crime,” a court clerk announced, reading from the verdict by Judge Benjamin Pozon. “He was the one who was on top of the complainant, who resisted his kisses, pushed him and fought him back until she lost consciousness because of alcoholic drinks she had taken.”
The defendants had claimed that what took place inside the van was sex between consenting adults and that the woman only cried rape because she wanted to salvage her reputation.
This is the first time that an American serviceman was convicted of a felony in the Philippines since the American bases here were closed down in 1992.
In a way, the case became a trial as well of the Visiting Forces Agreement, the document that sets the parameters on how American military personnel should be dealt with if they violate Philippine laws. During the trial, the American embassy here had custody of the marines, something that many nationalists considered as proof of the lopsidedness of the agreement.
But many, like Senator Rodolfo Biazon, who chairs the defense committee, disagree. The agreement, he said, is working fine. “I think justice has been served,” he said. “This is precedent-setting because this is the first time that the V.F.A. is being put to the test.”
The verdict said that, in the absence of an agreement between Manila and Washington as to where Mr. Smith should be imprisoned, he should stay at a Manila jail. Mr. Smith’s lawyer immediately questioned this particular part of the verdict, arguing that the Visiting Forces Agreement suggested that during the appeals process Mr. Smith should remain in the custody of the embassy.
According to Mr. Biazon, who is also the co-chairman of an oversight committee on the agreement in the Philippine Senate, Washington and Manila will have to meet very soon to decide on this point. “Whether the verdict will be good or bad for the agreement is entirely up to the two governments,” he said in an interview.
But critics are already harping on the supposed bias for Washington of Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
“The question now is this: Will President Arroyo turn over this convicted rapist to the U.S. government despite the court ruling?” asked Satur Ocampo, a leftist congressman who among the most vocal critics of the agreement.
“From the very start, the Philippines is at a disadvantage,” said Roland Simbulan, a political science professor at the University of the Philippines who has studied and written books on the American military presence in the country. “No agreement should favor one military over the other. If the U.S. forces come here and take advantage of our laws, they should be subjected to equal treatment,” he said.
The American embassy, in a statement on Friday, said “the U.S. will continue to abide by the Visiting Forces Agreement through the completion of all judicial proceedings, including any appeals.” It said “the U.S. government has adhered throughout to the terms of the Visiting Forces Agreement.”
All these recriminations notwithstanding, it seems unlikely that the verdict would strain relations between Manila and Washington. Critics of the agreement, however, think that the rape trial should at least bring the agreement back to the national agenda.
Analysts say the Arroyo administration is not likely to rethink its position regarding the agreement because the president is a key American ally and Washington remains the Philippines’ top provider of defense and military assistance.
“I see neither an attempt nor inclination by the administration to re-examine the agreement,” said Benito Lim, an expert on Southeast Asian defense issues at the Ateneo de Manila University. “But it should really be revised mainly because old issues such as criminal jurisdiction, as this case has shown, have never been clearly defined.”
__________________________________________________________________