February 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > February 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 172884 : February 06, 2007] "NICOLE" V. HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 139, DANIEL SMITH, CHAD BRIAN CARPENTER, DOMINIC DUPLANTIS AND KEITH SILKWOOD :
[G.R. No. 172884 : February 06, 2007]
"NICOLE" V. HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 139, DANIEL SMITH, CHAD BRIAN CARPENTER, DOMINIC DUPLANTIS AND KEITH SILKWOOD
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 6, 2007.
G.R. No. 172884 - ("NICOLE" v. HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 139, DANIEL SMITH, CHAD BRIAN CARPENTER, DOMINIC DUPLANTIS and KEITH SILKWOOD)
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Petitioner is the private complainant for rape against four United States military personnel stationed in the Philippines under the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), namely, Daniel Smith, Chad Brian Carpenter, Dominic Duplantis and Keith Silkwood.
The principal thrust of the petition is directed against the provision in the VFA that states:
Petitioner contends that the one-year limit imposed by the provision on the time for trial violates the Constitution because it infringes the power of this Court to promulgate rules concerning procedure in all courts.[2]
The trial of the case, however, has been terminated, and this occurred within one year from the earliest possible time for reckoning such period. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, on December 27, 2005. The trial court rendered judgment on December 4, 2006.[3] Consequently, the issue of whether the obligation of the United States under the VFA to present the accused for the trial continues even after the one-year period is now merely academic in this case, since the one-year period was not exceeded.
The petition, therefore, has become moot.
The other points raised in the petition referring to the custody of the accused, now relevant only as to Daniel Smith, are raised by petitioner in a new petition[4] filed before this Court and would thus be more properly addressed in that case.
WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED for being MOOT. No costs.
G.R. No. 172884 - ("NICOLE" v. HON. BENJAMIN T. POZON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 139, DANIEL SMITH, CHAD BRIAN CARPENTER, DOMINIC DUPLANTIS and KEITH SILKWOOD)
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Petitioner is the private complainant for rape against four United States military personnel stationed in the Philippines under the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), namely, Daniel Smith, Chad Brian Carpenter, Dominic Duplantis and Keith Silkwood.
The principal thrust of the petition is directed against the provision in the VFA that states:
6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.[1]
Petitioner contends that the one-year limit imposed by the provision on the time for trial violates the Constitution because it infringes the power of this Court to promulgate rules concerning procedure in all courts.[2]
The trial of the case, however, has been terminated, and this occurred within one year from the earliest possible time for reckoning such period. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, on December 27, 2005. The trial court rendered judgment on December 4, 2006.[3] Consequently, the issue of whether the obligation of the United States under the VFA to present the accused for the trial continues even after the one-year period is now merely academic in this case, since the one-year period was not exceeded.
The petition, therefore, has become moot.
The other points raised in the petition referring to the custody of the accused, now relevant only as to Daniel Smith, are raised by petitioner in a new petition[4] filed before this Court and would thus be more properly addressed in that case.
WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED for being MOOT. No costs.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Art. V, par. 6. See Rollo, p. 39. Emphasis supplied.
[2] Art. VIII, Sec. 5, Subsec. 5, Constitution.
[3] Convicting Daniel Smith and acquitting the three other accused.
[4] G.R. No. 175888 entitled "Nicole" v. Hon. Alberto Romulo, et al.
