Recant is a word associated with the Dark Ages and witch hunts. Those accused of heresy were forced to recant their heretical beliefs to avoid burning at the stake. Even then, recantations were never taken as a belated statement of the truth but, rather, as a means to escape an even more horrible fate.

Recently, recantations have been hitting Philippine headlines. First, we have former Senior Supt. Glenn Dumlao recanting his earlier statement on the involvement of former police Senior Supt. Cezar Mancao in the killing of publicist Bubby Dacer. Now, we have headlines screaming that Subic ?rape victim? Nicole has recanted and is saying there was no rape. Really?

I have read Nicole?s sworn statement in its entirety and... well, the affidavit is a legal masterpiece of manipulation. It is careful not to paint Nicole as a liar and it is even more careful in not making out Daniel Smith as a monster. What it is not is a specific denial that rape had been committed. What it does is raise doubts.

Read the affidavit. Read it paragraph by paragraph. Read it word for word. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 introduce the affiant, Nicole, and announce that she is an educated and respectable woman and no impoverished and illiterate streetwalker. The first three paragraphs say she is an intelligent girl executing the affidavit intelligently. Paragraph 4 says Smith was convicted because the court found that he took advantage of her intoxication and had sex with her inside the van. Paragraph 5 is a list of all the drinks she had consumed before she was carried to the van.

From paragraph 6, the doubting begins. Nicole tries to reconcile the rape with extraneous details and seemingly couldn?t. She says, ?...it dawned upon me that I may have possibly lost my inhibitions, became so intimate with Daniel Smith and did more than just dancing and talking with him.?

In psychology, there is a term called ?victim blaming.? In the context of rape, it means the victim is, at the very least, partially responsible for the rape. Common examples include dressing provocatively and flirting. In short, the victim was asking for it. It?s closely related to the battered wife syndrome where the wife tries to justify the husband?s violence by claiming she provoked him.

Then, Nicole asks, ?...if Daniel Smith wanted to rape me, why would he carry me out of the Neptune Club using the main entrance in full view of the security guard and the other customers? Why would the van park right in front of Neptune Club? Why would Daniel Smith and his companies bring me to the seawall of Alaba pier and casually leave this area that was well lighted and with many people roaming around? If they believed that I was raped, would they have not dumped me instead in a dimly lit area along the highway going to Alaba pier to avoid detection??

These are questions of someone who thinks that rape is always committed in secrecy. Cheryl Ann Araujo was gang raped on a pool table in a tavern in Massachusetts while others watched. The case got a lot of publicity and subsequently inspired a movie (The Accused starring Jodie Foster). Secrecy, cover of darkness, or any other attempt to hide the crime... these are not essential elements of rape. Rape is a show of power and some men like to brag. So, all those whys in Nicole?s affidavits do not necessarily negate rape. From one perspective, they make things even more horrible because of the presence of impunity.

By the time you reach the end of the affidavit, the inevitable dawns on you? Nicole doesn?t know whether or not she was raped. At the same time, there is nothing there that categorically says she and Smith engaged in consensual sex. What it says is that Nicole doubts that she really passed out because she distinctly remembers some details. Yet, it also says that she was so drunk that she could not have knowingly given her consent freely. And where there is lack of consent, how can rape be precluded?

A trial is not a quest for truth. It is a quest for retribution. And as the clich? goes, it?s not about what?s true but what you can prove. That?s why lawyers get paid so much?because expertise can make all the difference in determining what can be proved and disproved, and in what can be included and excluded as evidence. And a verdict, whether declaring the accused innocent or guilty, is merely an assessment of all the evidence allowed and received. Information that may sway public opinion, unless it forms part of the evidence, is excluded in the determination of guilt or innocence.

What happens now? Trial is over, Smith has been convicted and the case is on appeal. Rule 121 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure says the accused may move for a new trial based on ?new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.?

There is no new and material evidence in the affidavit of Nicole. There is only doubt.

The author blogs at http://houseonahill.net, http://pinoycook.net and http://www.sassylawyer.com