If there is one thing to learn from the Daniel Smith case, it is on how to successfully prosecute a rape case.

Taken from the Court of Appeals document:

In rape cases, the following principles have been formulated to guide the courts in the decision of these cases: (1) it is difficult to prove rape, but even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence of prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.In a prosecution of Rape, the credibility of the private complainant becomes the single, most important issue considering that her testimony alone “if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things” is sufficient for conviction.

In my mind, Nicole has become the poster child of how NOT to cry wolf. Or in this situation, how NOT to cry RAPE.

This Court finds it deceptively posturing Nicole’s portrayal of herself as a demure provinciana lass . . . Her going to Subic from far away Zamboanga with her step-sister, allowing two American friends whom they met only three months earlier, and accepting their offer of free hotel accommodations and other things as well, in her words—”to enjoy”—do not coincide with the demure provinciana lass we are talking about. She testified that she drank a shot of Vodka Sprite and B-52, bottoms up, which already made her feel giddy. And yet she still took Singaporean Sling, B-53, Long Island Iced Tea, and to top it all, half a pitcher of Bullfrog, making her really drunk but in the same breath, tells the court that she danced with a man whom she thought was “Gerard” but was later identified as [Daniel] Smith, through several disco beats, lasting fifteen minutes or so.

Accusation is not synonymous to guilt—so crying wolf does not magically cause a wolf to appear.

Oh and by the way, Filipino Voices blogger Manuel Buencamino writes that Daniel Smith was acquitted by Manangs. He should know better. Daniel Smith was acquitted because of a fundamental rule of law. It’s called Presumption of Innocence. He should read more about it.