Dean, I’m sorry but I\'m not even insinuating. I’m stating a definitional fact of plagiarism because those aren\'t \"her own words\" but Smith\'s lawyers.\' I\'m surprised myself by the recklessness. Indeed, it\'s supposed to be a decision based on facts, not something creative or speculative.

Now, to be more imaginative, I guess you may notionally compare those two statements vis-à-vis each other to the Abu Ghraib photos as facts of torture . . . oh well committed by those other sort of (U.S.) servicemen.

Noy, I know that if I consume 6 glasses of Long Island Iced Tea, I’d be as dead as Ricky Hatton even before hitting that canvas. That’s why based on my own personal experience, I believe Nicole was so dead drunk she could not possibly have given consent to having sex upon passing out (NB: the fact is not disputed that Nicole couldn’t even put her pants up even when people on the street were taken aback by her condition on the curb).

So, let’s do something. Try consuming (or have some consume) what Nicole imbibed on that fateful night and drink a glassful of water on the rocks (the appellate court believes the melted ice in the glass lessened the effects of the alcohol). Then post the result of your experiment here.

I think the list of drinks below is not disputed in the CA decision (please correct me if my count is wrong):

1. Vodka Sprite (3 glasses)

2. B-52 (a mixture of Kahlua, Baileys and Grand Mariner)

3. Singapore Sling (half-glass)

4. B-53 (a mixture of Kahlua, Baileys and Vodka)

5. Long Island Iced Tea

6. Half a pitcher of Bullfrog (a pitcher is equivalent to six glasses and a 10-oz glass is a mixture of 1 shot vodka, 1 shot gin, 2 shots pineapple juice, 2 shots sprite, 1 shot lime juice)

Others may also try the experiment, if they wish, and post the result here. Then let’s talk again. I will accept the result of the experiments wholeheartedly. GAME?

No, Upn, I am not aware of any specific law, specially criminal law, that may have been violated. Some other lawyers may know. But I always think that plagiarism is intellectual dishonesty. I\'m just being hyperbolic (satirical, maybe) in the above to underscore my point.

jcc, please re-read the two quoted statements and tell us again if it was an appropriation on the part of Justice Zenarosa of something that belongs to another or only a slip-up.

Just to give you one more example. If you, say as an expert, have been asked by the court to submit an amicus curiae brief for its guidance in resolving a difficult issue before it, and you worked hard to research and prepare your brief in compliance with the request, would you honestly still say that well, it “may be objectionable but not entirely wrongful … it could be some inadvertence or slip-up.”

On the other hand, I believe I have thoroughly expounded in a couple of posts here in FV that the reasons upon which the CA has grounded its decision to reverse the lower court’s judgment are "bereft of substance," even ludicrous, and do not comport with either settled legal principles or ordinary experience. The plagiarism - because I see the infraction as a clear case of dishonest appropriation - is just on top of such an unfortunate judicial misadventure.

Philippines needs more advocate of women's rights in its courts.

Dean,

It may not be the best line but keep the last one anyway.

I mean that: \"No tags for this post.\" haha

GabbyD,

Just like the manangs, jcc is jumping from one conclusion into another (such as: “Apparently Abe, you have not practiced your law in RP”).

Anyway, more than a quarter of a century ago when the law firm that represented Daniel Smith (the largest in the Philippines then and maybe still now I think) interviewed me to be one of their trial lawyers, one of the questions asked by the head of the litigation department was whether it would bother me if I acted as what jcc calls “chamber” practitioners. I said: “Been there, done that.” Although impressed by my candidness, the law firm didn’t like my asking price so I joined another law firm instead.

Many decisions of our courts, the SC not excepted, are shameful because of the influence of these "backdoor operators." Ultimately, I decided to quit trial practice convinced that our court system is prone to great injustice. So, jcc is not really making up things.

Dean,

You are still missing the point.

The simple point being driven is that it comports more with “ordinary experience” that a drunken marine will screw a dead drunk woman in front of his drunken buddies than a college-educated lady consenting to being screwed in a moving van by a complete stranger in front or in the open view of his drunken buddies who are themselves complete strangers to her.

Now, tell us what makes the lady justices “hipper” in believing the claim of the drunken marine to be “straight-forward” whereas the account of the “proviciana lass” is nothing but “malingering explanation” and “dubiously fanciful”?

In upholding the drunken marine’s version, the lady justices relied on the following speculations, among other things:

1. “Her going to Subic from far away Zamboanga with her stepsister, allowing two American friends whom they met only about three months earlier (sic) 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.”

2. “When a woman is drunk, she can hardly rise, much more stand up and dance, or she would just drop. This is a common experience among Filipino girls.”

3. “She told the court that after dancing for fifteen minutes or so, he asked her to go out for some fresh air, and that was the last thing she could remember. In other words, 'when I discovered consciousness, he was already on top of me, kissing me all over even as I was resisting his advances.' This gap in her narration with the malingering explanation that she was dizzy and could not remember is dubiously fanciful for being what the court perceptively describes as “contrary to the ordinary experience of man.”

4. “Suddenly the moment of parting came and the Marines had to rush to the ship. In that situation, reality dawned on Nicole—what her audacity and reckless abandon, flirting with Smith and leading him on, brought upon her.”

What’s more, the prosecution testimonies “pasuray-suray” corroborated by disinterested witnesses are deemed by the justices to be “rehearsed” but the identical testimonies of interested witnesses for the accused, “leave that bitch” and “I’m not a bitch,” to establish a lame motive for faking a rape case (i.e., "to salvage, at least, a vestige of self-esteem," as the court theorized it) are truthful.

Dean, one hip view of the evolving nature of rape (or “outside the square” concept as benignO would probably put it) is shared by leytenian in the very first comment in this thread:

“The traditional old view on rape case requires proof of five elements: force and resistance, penetration, no consent, absence of a spousal relationship (the marital exemption), and the state of mind (mens rea). The modern view has led many to abandon the traditional requirements. The modern evolution has a significant feature that abandons the term rape and modifies it to use a gender-neutral term such as sexual battery to describe the offense.”

Rape, even in the Philippines, is no longer a crime against the chastity of a “demure provinciana lass” (or of the Maria Clara of the ancient). It is now an assault on the personhood of the victim.

Looks like our Nick is of the same frame of mind: “… if there is one lesson to be learned by this victory, it is that preparation is key, and so is implementation of strategies. As a nation, let’s ponder the preparation, planning, and implementation a bit more.”

Have you? And how was it and can you give us some hints within bounds what’s being missed?

Also, next time, before having the FUN, try consuming first the amount of alcohol Nicole had, and tell us the difference.

“Hipper”? Because “on reasonable ground” it’s more acceptable to the lady justices for a "modern" daughter or granddaughter to engage in a passionate sex with a complete stranger inside a vehicle in the presence of drunken buddies than having some fun or “euphoric self-indulgence” with expenses paid for by “friends” of somewhat short acquaintance?

Aren’t we in fact hearing these from the hip and cool judges: Nicole is a cheap slut (because of her “indecorous behavior”) ergo she doesn’t deserve the protection of the law?