TV host Ferdinand “Vhong” Navarro maintained his innocence, saying he did not rape model Denience Cornejo in 2014 in Taguig.
This after the Taguig City Prosecutor’s Office filed a case of rape against Navarro on Aug. 31 before the Taguig Regional Trial Court.
The prosecutor’s office filed the information stating that Navarro “through force, threat and intimidation, and by purposely intoxicating the victim, did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one Deniece Millinete Cornejo” and raped her.
“Di ba paulit-ulit kong sinasabi, ang pagkakasala ko, ang kasalanan ko dito ay niloko ko ‘yung girlfriend ko noon at ito na ‘yung wife ko ngayon (I always said that my sin here is I cheated on my girlfriend who is now my wife),” Navarro told ABS-CBN News.
He added, “Nilahad ko ‘yung istorya ko at lahat ng katotohanan. So lahat ng binibintang nila sa akin, hindi totoo ‘yun. At ako ay nagsasabi ng totoo at alam ng Panginoon ‘yun na nagsasabi ako ng totoo (I told my story and all the truth. So all their accusations are not true. I am telling the truth and God knows that I am telling the truth).”
Last July 21, the Court of Appeals sided with Cornejo and ordered the Taguig City Prosecutor’s Office “to file Informations against Ferdinand ‘Vhong’ H. Navarro for: (1) Rape by Sexual Intercourse under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353; and (2) Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.”
It also overturned the DOJ resolutions issued on April 30, 2018 and July 14, 2020, which dismissed the complaints of rape against Navarro.
“It was erroneous for the DOJ to deny Cornejo’s petition for review on the ground that her statements in the complaint-affidavits are inconsistent and incredible. In this regard, it bears to stress that the determination of probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of a party’s accusation or defense or on the admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented,” the appeals court said.
The DOJ prosecutors dismissed the complaints of rape against Navarro. Cornejo filed a petition for review with the DOJ, which, in its April 30, 2018 resolution, denied it.
Among the reasons for the denial was, according to the Court of Appeals ruling, “Cornejo’s explanation as to why her affidavits contain inconsistent allegations buried her deeper on the credibility issue since it either proceeds from afterthought or bad faith.”
On June 28, 2018, Cornejo filed a motion for reconsideration but it was again denied on July 14, 2020.
The Court of Appeals ruled that “issues of credibility should be adjudged during the trial proper. It goes without saying that it is the trial court that has the unique power and position to observe the witnesses’ deportment, manner of testifying, emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice, all of which are potent aids in ascertaining the witness’ credibility.”
It added that “ultimately, it falls upon the trial court to determine who between Navarro and Cornejo speaks the truth. Cornejo decries attempted rape on the night of January 22, 2014 while Navarro denies any wrongdoing on his part.”
“We reiterate once more that the preliminary investigation is not the proper venue to rule on the respondent’s guilt or innocence. Likewise, whether the other pieces of documentary or electronic evidence presented at the preliminary investigation level is enough to impeach the credibility of the alleged rape victim so as to exculpate the respondent of the crime imputed against him is a matter best left to the scrutiny of the trial court,” it said.
It added, “Finally, it must be borne in mind that the admissibility or inadmissibility of the parties’ evidence should be ventilated before the trial court during the trial proper and not in the preliminary investigation. There need not be an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. What is merely required is probability of guilt, the determination of which does not call for the application of rules or standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge. Wherefore, the petition is granted.”
Navarro has filed a motion for reconsideration and urgent motion for the issuance of a status quo ante order before the Court of Appeals regarding its decision. He also filed a motion to dismiss the information about the new rape case filed with the Taguig Regional Trial Court.
Executive Judge Antonio Olivete issued an order on Sept. 1 deferring the raffling of Navarro’s rape case to a Taguig court that will hear the case pending the resolution of Navarro’s motions with the Court of Appeals.