Title
Supreme Court
Nicolas y Sombilon vs. Romulo
Case
G.R. No. 175888
Decision Date
Feb 11, 2009
A U.S. Marine convicted of rape in the Philippines was transferred to U.S. custody under the Visiting Forces Agreement, sparking debates on its constitutionality and enforcement.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 159747)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and case origin
    • Suzette S. Nicolas (Filipina, 22 years old) filed an affidavit-complaint on November 1, 2005, accusing Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith and four U.S. Marines of rape under Article 266-A, RPC as amended by R.A. 8353, committed inside Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
    • Smith, a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, was surrendered to Philippine custody under the RP-U.S. Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) pending prosecution.
  • Trial and conviction
    • For security reasons, the case was transferred from RTC Zambales to RTC Makati. U.S. authorities cooperated, bringing Smith to court as required by the VFA.
    • On December 4, 2006, RTC Makati acquitted three co-accused and convicted L/Cpl. Smith of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties and P100,000 damages; under VFA Article V(10), it ordered his detention in agreed-upon facilities, temporarily at Makati City Jail.
  • Transfer of custody and procedural history
    • On December 19 and 22, 2006, the RP Department of Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Embassy executed the “Romulo-Kenney Agreements,” transferring Smith from Makati Jail to detention at the U.S. Embassy, guarded by U.S. personnel.
    • On January 2, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed as moot Smith’s petition challenging the transfer. Petitioners filed separate special civil actions before the Supreme Court for certiorari, injunction, and review of the CA decision.

Issues:

  • Is the RP-U.S. Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) valid and constitutional under Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution?
  • Do the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006 violate the VFA, specifically Article V, Section 10’s requirement that post-conviction detention be “by Philippine authorities”?
  • Do the VFA provisions on custody and detention infringe the Supreme Court’s rule-making power (Art. VIII, Sec. 5) or the equal protection clause (Art. III, Sec. 1)?
  • In light of Medellin v. Texas (U.S. SCt, March 25, 2008), is the VFA self-executing or enforceable as U.S. domestic law without implementing legislation?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.