The Supreme Court Third Division ruled on the 8th of February that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had valid grounds to dismiss the two criminal cases filed by model Deniece Cornejo against comedian-host Vhong Navarro.
The court found that Cornejo’s allegations were inconsistent, leading to the dismissal of the cases. The ruling was only made public on March 13.
“Having determined that the DOJ committed no grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding of lack of probable cause against Navarro, the Court, in the interest of justice and fair play, is constrained to dismiss the subject pieces of information against him,” the decision said.
The ruling was unanimous as Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Samuel Gaerlan, Japar Dimaampao, and Maria Filomena Singh concurred. The cases in question are the rape by sexual intercourse and acts of lasciviousness charges which the Court of Appeals had ordered prosecutors to file in the court in July 2022.
The Department of Justice dismissed the complaints filed by Cornejo in 2018 and 2020 because of issues with the credibility of the allegations. However, the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals overturned the rulings stating that ‘it falls upon the trial court to determine who between Navarro and Cornejo speaks the truth.'”
The Supreme Court declared that the Court of Appeals was mistaken in overturning the Department of Justice’s dismissal of the cases against Navarro. The Court clarified that determining probable cause during the preliminary investigation is an executive function of the public prosecutor.
“By reason of the executive nature of this prosecutorial prerogative, courts cannot compel the prosecution of a person against whom the public prosecutor has found no sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for indictment. Courts cannot substitute their own judgment for that which is fundamentally in the domain of the Executive branch,” it explained.
According to the Supreme Court, the only time the public prosecutors’ executive function in determining probable cause during a preliminary investigation can be questioned is when there is a grave abuse of discretion resulting in a lack or excess of jurisdiction.
However, the Court found that the prosecutor’s decision in Navarro’s case was made objectively and by legal standards, concluding that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors.
“Prosecutors are duty-bound to make a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case during the preliminary investigation,” the court ruled.
The Third Division listed the discrepancies in Cornejo’s three affidavits against Navarro, which included conflicting claims about the events on January 17, 2014, and inconsistent allegations about when and how Navarro allegedly raped or attempted to rape her.
Specifically, Cornejo’s first complaint stated that nothing happened on January 17, while her second and third complaints accused Navarro of rape. Additionally, her first complaint accused Navarro of raping her on January 22, her second complaint did not mention this allegation, and her third complaint claimed an attempted rape.
Cornejo submitted three separate affidavits, with the first being signed on January 29, 2014, the second on February 27, 2014, and the third on October 16, 2015.
“As underscored by the DOJ, a preliminary investigation is not a hit-or-miss endeavor where one could file complaints one after another until he or she gets the desired results. Justice and fair play dictate that Cornejo should not be permitted to materially change her theory in her two previous complaints in a deliberate attempt to address or rectify the weaknesses of her theories, as pointed out by the prosecutor in the dismissal thereof, or worse, supplant or add new material allegations,” the court said.
The court stated that even though a trial court’s findings on the credibility of a witness are usually given deference, this principle does not apply to “inconsistent allegations that are too obvious and apparent to ignore.”
Cornejo’s inconsistencies were deemed significant by the high court, and it mostly relied on her complaints to resolve the cases.
The court acknowledged no physical injuries during the initial encounter where Cornejo supposedly resisted Navarro’s advances. It also noted that Cornejo tried to explain this by claiming that she drank wine, which was not mentioned in her first two complaints.
The court did not discuss the CCTV footage from Cornejo’s condominium unit on January 22, 2014, which showed Navarro leaving the elevator to go to Cornejo’s unit at 10:39 pm while Cornejo entered the elevator around a minute after Navarro left.
The Third Division of the Supreme Court recognized that the Navarro case offered an opportunity to establish legal standards for preliminary investigations. The court posed several questions that need clarification, such as what evidence prosecutors can consider when filing a case during preliminary investigations.
The court also questioned whether prosecutors are prevented from making findings on inconsistencies in allegations due to credibility issues that are better determined by a trial in court. The court also questioned whether evaluating the credibility of the evidence is too high a standard for filing cases in court, which deviates from the probability of the crime’s commission.
“Under the circumstances, the CA simply had no basis to reverse the prosecutor’s finding of lack of probable cause. On the contrary, it is the CA that disregarded such parameters when it substituted its own judgment for that of the prosecutor’s finding of lack of probable cause against Navarro,” it concluded.
Navarro was involved in a controversial incident with Cornejo in January 2014.
According to Navarro, he was invited by Cornejo to her condominium unit in Taguig City, where a group of men allegedly attacked and beaten up.
Navarro claimed that Cornejo accused him of attempting to rape her, which he vehemently denied. Navarro was subsequently detained by the police on charges of attempted rape, while Cornejo filed a complaint of rape against him.
The incident sparked a media frenzy, with Navarro and Cornejo giving interviews and making public statements about the incident. Navarro eventually filed countercharges against Cornejo and her companions, accusing them of illegal detention, serious physical injuries, and grave threats. The case went to court, and after a lengthy trial, Navarro was acquitted of the charges of attempted rape.
Cornejo and her companions were found guilty of illegally detaining Navarro and were sentenced to prison. The incident caused a lot of public outrage and raised concerns about the prevalence of violence against women and the importance of due process in the legal system.
It also highlighted the power of social media in shaping public opinion and the need for responsible reporting by the media.
