The Court of Appeals (CA) stood pat on its July 21, 2022 decision that ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file rape by sexual intercourse and acts of lasciviousness against comedian and television host Ferdinand “Vhong” H. Navarro on complaints by model Deniece Millinete Cornejo.
In a resolution promulgated last Sept. 20 and written by Associate Justice Florencio M. Mamauag Jr., the CA denied Navarro’s motion for reconsideration and plea for status quo ante order (SQAO) that would stop the DOJ from filing the criminal cases.
The DOJ, through the Taguig City prosecutor’s office, had filed the two cases before the city’s metropolitan trial court (MeTC) on acts of lasciviousness and before the regional trial court (RTC) on rape.
MeTC Judge Angela Francesca M. Din of Branch 116 had found probable cause on Navarro’s indictment for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and ordered his arrest. Bail recommended was P36,000.
Navarro surrendered to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Quezon City last Sept. 19 after learning of the arrest order issued by the MeTC.
However, in the afternoon of Sept. 19, Taguig City RTC Judge Loralie Cruz Datahan ordered Navarro’s arrest on a non-bailable offense of rape under Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353.
From the NBI in Quezon City, Navarro has since been held in custody at the NBI’s detention facility in Manila.
His lawyers said they would file a motion for bail before the RTC. It was not known immediately if the motion has been filed and if it was acted upon by the trial court.
Legal quarters said Navarro may still challenge the CA’s decision and resolution before the Supreme Court (SC), even the plea to post bail if denied by the RTC.
Cornejo filed in 2014 three criminal charges against Navarro for alleged rape and attempted rate. Her complaints were dismissed by the Taguig City prosecutor’s office. She elevated the case to the DOJ which denied her appeal. She then filed a petition with the CA challenging the DOJ’s resolutions.
Among other things, the CA said in granting Cornejo’s appeal:
“The Court also notes Navarro’s admission that he and Cornejo had consensual oral sex on January 17, 2014. Given the peculiar nature of rape, it almost always presents a ‘he said, she said’ scenario which leaves the trial court the task to decide whom between the private complainant or the accused should it believe.
“On one hand, justice must be rendered to a rape victim bearing in mind that she is physically, psychologically, emotionally and socially scarred.
“On the other, an accusation of rape can be made with facility, and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even harder for the accused, though innocent, to disprove.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“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.”
In denying Navarro’s motion for reconsideration and plea for SQAO, the CA said:
“... Navarro’s argument that the Court cannot direct the OCP (Office of City Prosecutor) to file the Informations (criminal charge sheets) because the assailed Decision has not yet attained finality is simply untenable. Logic dictates that the filing of the information must necessarily follow upon determination of probable cause. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent wherein the respondent may delay the filing of the case by deliberately bombarding the courts with appeals or other forms of dilatory actions to question the outcome of the preliminary investigation.
“Likewise, whether the OCP is not a party to the petition is of no moment since the public respondent and the OCP cannot be considered separate and distinct. For obvious reasons, it is the OCP that has the duty to file the Informations upon determination of probable cause because the cases ultimately fall within its jurisdiction.
“Finally, We also DENY Navarro’s prayer for issuance of status quo ante order.
“It is an established doctrine that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution. The reason for this rule is that the accused has an adequate remedy at law by establishing as a defense to the prosecution that he did not commit the act charged, or that the statute, on which the prosecution is based, is void, and, in case of conviction, be taking an appeal.
“Public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for the protection of society.
“However, the general rule that the courts will not issue writs of prohibition or injunction – whether preliminary or final – in order to enjoin or restrain any criminal prosecution admits of several exceptions.
“They are: (1) when the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) when there is a prejudicial question that is sub judice; (4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (5) when the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (6) when double jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) when the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (8) when it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; (9) when the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.
“Thus, absent any showing that Navarro’s case falls under any of the recognized exceptions, the prayer for the issuance of a status quo ante order to enjoin the filing of the Informations must be denied.
“WHEREFORE, for all the above reasons, the instant motions for reconsideration and for the issuance of a status quo ante order are DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.”