The Supreme Court on Monday gave lawyers of convicted rapist Lance Corporal Daniel Smith 10 days to reply to a petition demanding that they be sanctioned for releasing the recantation of Smith's victim identified only as "Nicole."

The court said lawyers of the Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez and Gatmaitan firm should submit their comments on the petition asking the court to investigate Nicole's statement.

The petition was filed by Nicole's former lawyer Evalyn Ursua, former senator Leticia Ramos-Shahani and the militant groups Gabriela and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan.

The court also ordered the petitioners to submit their plea to the Court of Appeals and gave CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. 90 days to investigate the alleged leakage of a draft ruling that absolved Smith of the rape.

The Makati City Regional Trial Court earlier found Smith guilty of the crime of rape and sentenced the American to 40 years in jail. Smith's lawyers, however, filed an appeal before the CA.

Two years after Smith's conviction, Nicole fired her lawyer and issued a sworn statement notarized by Smith's lawyer saying that she was no longer sure about the events surrounding the rape.

In a five-page affidavit, Nicole admitted that she "possibly lost her inhibitions" and became intimate with Smith after drinking alcoholic mixed drinks with him when they met at a bar in Subic, Olongapo City on November 1, 2005.

"Looking back, I would not have agreed to talk with Smith and dance with him no less than three times if I did enjoy his company or was at least attracted to him since I met him for the very first time on the dance floor of the Neptune Club," said Nicole.

Days after the release of Nicole's statement, the Manila Times ran a story on the CA draft ruling penned by retired CA Justice Agustin Dizon that declared Smith "innocent beyond reasonable doubt" in the Subic rape case. Dizon, who retired on June 27, 2008, had written that the accused should be acquitted both on the technical and substantive aspects.

The Manila Times report said Dizon was not able to hand down the ruling before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 after one CA justice, Celia Librea-Leagogo, asked for more time to review the case.