G.R. No. 175888 - Nicolas y Sombilon vs. Romulo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175888)

Key Dates

Alleged offense: on or about November 1, 2005. VFA entry into force: February 10, 1998. RTC Makati conviction: December 4, 2006. Romulo–Kenney agreements: December 19 and 22, 2006. Physical transfer to U.S. custody: December 29, 2006. Court of Appeals decision (dismissing petition as moot): January 2, 2007. Supreme Court oral arguments: September 19, 2008. Supreme Court decision resolving these petitions: February 11, 2009.

Facts and Trial Disposition

L/Cpl. Daniel J. Smith was charged with rape under Article 266‑A of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. 8353) based on a sworn complaint by Suzette S. Nicolas alleging rape inside a vehicle in the Subic Bay Freeport Zone. Pursuant to the VFA, the United States authorities had custody of Smith during proceedings and complied with producing him for trial. After trial in RTC Makati, Smith was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentenced to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties, and ordered temporarily committed to Makati City Jail pending arrangements for serving his sentence as provided by the VFA; the court also awarded compensatory and moral damages to the complainant.

Transfer to U.S. Custody and Romulo–Kenney Agreements

On December 29, 2006, Philippine agents transferred Smith from Makati City Jail to a U.S.‑controlled detention facility pursuant to two agreements signed December 19 and 22, 2006 (referred to as the Romulo–Kenney Agreements). Those instruments provided for Smith’s return to U.S. military custody and detention in a room within the U.S. Embassy compound, guarded by U.S. military personnel, with Philippine police and jail authorities to have access to ensure U.S. compliance.

Procedural Challenge and Core Legal Questions

Petitions were filed challenging the transfer and asserting (1) the VFA’s constitutionality and reciprocal legal status, (2) whether the Romulo–Kenney Agreements were consistent with the VFA, and (3) the implications of U.S. jurisprudence (notably Medellin v. Texas) on whether the VFA is enforceable as domestic law in the United States. Petitioners also argued constitutional objections invoking the Court’s rulemaking and equal protection powers as related to custody and detention.

Majority Holding on the Constitutionality of the VFA

The Court upholds the constitutionality of the VFA under the 1987 Constitution. It relies on prior decision Bayan v. Zamora and finds (a) the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and (b) it has been recognized by the United States as a binding international agreement. The Court treats the VFA as an implementing instrument of the RP–US Mutual Defense Treaty (1951), the latter having been ratified by both the Philippine and U.S. Senates (the majority cites U.S. Senate advice and consent on March 20, 1952). The Court reasons that, as an implementing agreement of a ratified mutual defense treaty, the VFA satisfies Article XVIII, Section 25’s requirement that agreements permitting foreign troops be “recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.”

Majority Analysis on Custody During Proceedings and Post‑Conviction Detention

The Court distinguishes custody during criminal proceedings from detention after conviction. It interprets VFA Article V, paragraph 6 to permit United States military authorities to hold custody of U.S. personnel from the commission of an offense until completion of judicial proceedings, subject to timely production for investigatory/judicial needs and a one‑year default rule. Conversely, the Court reads Article V, Section 10 to require that confinement or detention of U.S. personnel be “carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United States authorities” and explicitly states detention shall be “by Philippine authorities.” Consequently, while U.S. custody during trial complied with Article V(6), the post‑conviction transfer of Smith to detention “by” U.S. authorities at the U.S. Embassy conflicted with Article V(10).

Majority Ruling on the Romulo–Kenney Agreements

Applying the VFA text, the Court declares the Romulo–Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006 not in accordance with the VFA because they provided for detention of a convicted U.S. personnel within U.S. Embassy facilities under U.S. control rather than detention by Philippine authorities in agreed facilities. The Court orders the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to negotiate immediately with U.S. representatives for an appropriate agreement providing for detention facilities under Philippine authorities in conformity with Article V, Section 10 of the VFA, and maintains the status quo pending further orders.

Majority Conclusion on Medellin v. Texas and the VFA’s Enforceability in U.S. Law

Addressing the Medellin decision (U.S. Supreme Court), the majority concludes the VFA is self‑executing as that term is applied in Medellin because the VFA was intended to carry out obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty and has been implemented (for example, the U.S. produced Smith during trial). The Court also holds the VFA was transmitted under the U.S. Case‑Zablocki Act and that the Mutual Defense Treaty itself was advised and consented to by the U.S. Senate in 1952; the majority relies on U.S. precedents (e.g., Weinberger v. Rossi) to treat executive agreements as “treaties” in international law and enforceable in the U.S. Accordingly, the Court finds Medellin does not nullify the VFA’s reciprocal enforceability or its validity as a basis for the visitation and jurisdictional arrangements in question.

Relief, Directives, and Procedural Disposition

The Court partly grants the petitions and modifies the Court of Appeals’ January 2, 2007 dismissal. It declares the Romulo–Kenney Agreements inconsistent with the VFA, orders negotiation for detention facilities under Philippine authorities per VFA Article V Sec. 10, and directs maintenance of the status quo pending further orders. The Court of Appeals is instructed to promptly resolve related matters pending before it (including contempt proceedings and Smith’s appeal). No costs were imposed.

Dissenting Views — Carpio and Puno (joined by others)

The dissenting opinions assert that Medellin materially alters the legal landscape by holding that treaties are not domestic enforceable law in the U.S. unless self‑executing or implemented by Congress. The dissenters contend the United States does not recognize the VFA as a treaty enforceable under U.S. domestic law but tre

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 175888)

Facts

Respondent Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith, a member of the United States Armed Forces, was charged with rape committed against Suzette S. Nicolas on or about November 1, 2005, inside the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Olongapo City, under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353. The complaint named co-accused Ssgt. Chad Brian Carpentier, Dominic Duplantis, Keith Silkwood and Timoteo L. Soriano, Jr.
Under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States (entered February 10, 1998), the United States, at its request, was granted custody of defendant Smith pending proceedings. During trial (transferred from RTC Zambales to RTC Makati for security), the United States produced Smith in court whenever required.
On December 4, 2006, RTC Makati convicted L/Cpl. Daniel J. Smith beyond reasonable doubt of rape (Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a)) and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties under Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code, and ordered temporary commitment to Makati City Jail pending agreement on facilities where he would serve sentence under Article V, paragraph 10 of the VFA. The court acquitted the other named US Marines for failure of the prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence.
On December 29, 2006, Smith was removed from Makati City Jail by Philippine law enforcement agents and taken to a United States-controlled detention facility pursuant to agreements between the Philippines and the United States dated December 19 and December 22, 2006 (the Romulo-Kenney Agreements).
The Romulo-Kenney Agreement of December 19, 2006 provided that Smith "be returned to U.S. military custody at the U.S. Embassy in Manila." The Romulo-Kenney Agreement of December 22, 2006 specified detention at the first floor, Rowe (JUSMAG) Building, U.S. Embassy Compound, guarded round the clock by U.S. military personnel, with Philippine police and jail authorities to have access to ensure compliance with the VFA.
The Court of Appeals dismissed as moot the petition challenging the transfer in CA-G.R. SP No. 97212 on January 2, 2007.
The present petitions for certiorari and related remedies followed. Oral arguments were held September 19, 2008; memoranda filed thereafter. The U.S. Supreme Court decision Medellin v. Texas (March 25, 2008) was raised as a material development; this Court required comments from the parties (Resolution, February 3, 2009).

Procedural History

Criminal complaint and trial in RTC (transferred to Makati); RTC decision convicting Smith dated December 4, 2006 (temporary commitment to Makati City Jail pending agreement on detention facilities).
Smith physically transferred to U.S. custody December 29, 2006 under Romulo-Kenney Agreements (Dec. 19 & 22, 2006).
Petition for certiorari and related relief filed with Court of Appeals; CA dismissed the petition as moot January 2, 2007.
Consolidated petitions filed with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 175888, 176051, 176222) challenging the transfer and the VFA’s application; oral argument September 19, 2008; final decision February 11, 2009 (opinion penned by Justice Azcuna).

Issues Presented

Whether the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States is constitutional under Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Whether the Romulo-Kenney Agreements (December 19 and 22, 2006) transferring detention custody of L/Cpl. Smith to U.S. Embassy facilities comport with the VFA, specifically Article V, Section 10.
Whether the VFA’s provisions on custody and detention violate the Court’s constitutional power to adopt rules of procedure (Art. VIII, Sec. 5) or the Equal Protection Clause (Art. III, Sec. 1).
The implication of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Medellin v. Texas (March 25, 2008) on the enforceability and reciprocal domestic effect of the VFA in the United States.
Whether the VFA is self-executing in the U.S. system or otherwise enforceable in the U.S., and whether applicable U.S. implementing legislation (Case-Zablocki Act) affects that status.

Relevant Legal Provisions and Instruments

Philippine Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 25 (requiring any agreement allowing foreign military presence to be under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State).
Philippine Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5 (exclusive power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure for all courts).
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States (entered February 10, 1998); Preamble referencing the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (August 30, 1951) and provisions on criminal jurisdiction, custody and detention (Article V, paras. 6 and 10).
RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (August 30, 1951) — an earlier treaty ratified by both the RP Senate and the U.S. Senate (ratified in 1952).
Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b — U.S. statute requiring notification/transmission to U.S. Congress of international agreements other than a treaty within 60 days of entry into force (relevant to executive agreements).
United States Supreme Court decision Medellin v. Texas (March 25, 2008) — held that treaties are not domestic law in the U.S. unless self-executing or implemented by Congress; ICJ decisions and certain treaty-derived obligations lack automatic domestic enforceability absent implementing legislation or self-executory treaty text.
U.S. Supreme Court precedent Weinberger v. Rossi (referenced by majority) recognizing that an executive agreement may be a "treaty" in international law and enforceable domestic law in U.S. under certain circumstances.

RTC Decision (December 4, 2006) — Findings and Sentence

The RTC of Makati found L/Cpl. Daniel J. Smith guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) and, pursuant to Article 266-B, first paragraph, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua together with accessory penalties under Article 41.
RTC ordered indemnification of complainant Suzette S. Nicolas in the amount of P50,000.00 compensatory and P50,000.00 moral damages.
Pursuant to Article V, paragraph 10 of the VFA, RTC directed that Smith shall serve his sentence in facilities to be agreed upon by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities; pending agreement he was temporarily committed to Makati City Jail.

Romulo-Kenney Agreements (Dec. 19 & 22, 2006) — Content

Romulo-Kenney Agreement (Dec. 19, 2006): Agreement that, in accordance with the VFA, L/Cpl. Daniel J. Smith "be returned to U.S. military custody at the U.S. Embassy in Manila" (signed by Kristie A. Kenney and Alberto G. Romulo).
Romulo-Kenney Agreement (Dec. 22, 2006): Provided that upon transfer from Makati City Jail, Smith would be detained at a designated room (approximately 10 x 12 feet) at Rowe (JUSMAG) Building, U.S. Embassy Compound, guarded round the clock by U.S. military personnel; Philippine police and jail authorities, under the supervision of the Philippine DILG, would have access to ensure U.S. compliance with VFA.
The Dec. 22 text specifically described detention at a U.S. Embassy facility and guard by U.S. military personnel.

Court of Appeals Ruling (January 2, 2007)

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition challenging the transfer of custody as moot (CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 97212 dated January 2, 2007).

Majority Opinion — Disposition (Supreme Court)

The petitions are PARTLY GRANTED.
The Court of Appeals Decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 97212, Jan. 2, 2007) is MODIFIED.
The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States (entered February 10, 1998) is UPHELD as constitutional.
The Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and December 22, 2006 are DECLARED not in accordance with the VFA, insofar as they provide for detention "in the United States Embassy" not "by Philippine authorities" as required under Article V, Section 10 of the VFA.
The Secretary of Foreign Affairs is ORDERED to forthwith negotiate with United States representatives for an appropriate agreement on detention facilities under Philippine authorities as provided in Article V, Section 10 of the VFA.
Pending negotiation or agreement on such facilities, the status quo is to be maintained until further orders by the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals is directed to resolve without delay related matters pending therein, namely the petition for contempt and the appeal of L/Cpl. Daniel Smith from the judgment of conviction.
No costs.

Majority Opinion — Key Reasoning and Legal Analysis

Constitutionality of the VFA:
- The VFA complies with Article
...continue reading