A Taguig court that granted bail to detained “It’s Showtime” host and comedian Ferdinand “Vhong” Navarro in the rape case ruled that complainant model Deniece Cornejo was inconsistent in her affidavits and testimony against him.
“Viewed in light of all the foregoing, and taking the evidence presented in the bail hearings as a whole, this Court is not convinced at this point, that there exists a presumption great leading to the inference of the accused’s guilt,” Presiding Judge Loralie Cruz Datahan of the Taguig Regional Trial Court Branch 69 said in her decision on Navarro’s petition for bail.
She added, “Wherefore, premises considered, the petition for bail is hereby granted. The bail of the accused for his provisional liberty is hereby fixed at One Million Pesos (Php 1,000,000.00).”
“It must be emphasized, however, that a grant of bail does not prevent the Court, as trier of facts, from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits,” she said.
In studying the evidence presented during Navarro’s five bail hearings held in October and November, the Taguig court noted that “after a thorough scrutiny of the documentary and testimonial evidence presented in this petition for bail, the Court finds that the prosecution fell short in establishing that the guilt of the accused is strong.”
The court noted that “the inconsistencies in complainant's affidavits and testimony are too material to ignore.”
“At the outset, that the complainant executed three (3) complaint affidavits – dated 29 January 2014, 27 February 2014, and October 16, 2015–in connection with this case is not disputed. In all of these affidavits, the complainant gave different versions of the incident,” the court noted.
According to the court, “While in the First and Second Affidavits there is no mention of any rape that happened on January 17, 2014, the complainant would, in the Third Affidavit executed more than a year after the incident, nárrate in detail how accused supposedly raped her.”
“The prosecution, however, failed to adequately explain why the complainant was scared to report the first incident (January 17, 2014), but not scared to report the second one (January 22, 2014), when both supposedly involve rape by the accused. It also bears to reiterate that the testimony of the victim alone is enough to convict a person of rape. However, this comes with the caveat that such testimony should be subjected to great scrutiny to ferret out the truth,” it said.
The court said Cornejo was not sure if he was drugged by Navarro.
“Likewise, while complainant positively claims to have been drugged by the accused, she would also testify that she was not sure about it. Indeed, the notable inconsistencies in the testimony of the private complainant could not be simply brushed aside, considering that these delve into the elements of the offense charged,” the court ruled.
In addition, the court noted that “the complainant's behavior is inconsistent with common experience and human nature” like “preening at herself and giggling, after supposedly having been raped.”
“The foregoing statements of the complainant are, to the mind of this Court, inconsistent with her claim of trauma, and outside the reasonable expectations for someone who just underwent a painful ordeal,” the court said.
In addition, the court ruled that “the evidence so far presented failed to establish the material allegations in the Information.”
“The Information in this case alleges that accused had carnal knowledge with the complainant through force, threat and intimidation, and by purposely intoxicating the victim. In her testimony, however, complainant confirmed that accused had no weapon with him at that time, and that she had not been threatened or intimidated by the former, nor was she beaten up by the accused,” it said.
The court explained that “in rape cases alleged to have been committed by force, threat or intimidation, it is imperative for the prosecution to establish that the element of voluntariness on the part of the victim be absolutely lacking.”
“The prosecution must. prove that force or intimidation was actually employed by accused upon his victim to àchieve his end. Failure to do so is fatal to its cause. Force, as an element of rape, must be sufficient to consummate the purposes which the accused had in mind,” it said.
The ruling added, “On the other hand, intimidation must produce fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. Intimidation includes the moral kind as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol. This, the evidence so far presented do not show.”
“Likewise, other than the complainant's testimony, there is no proof to substantiate her claim of being drugged. As previously stated, complainant admitted not seeing the accused put something in her drink. Moreover, there is no medical test result to show that her system contained a drug that could impede her reasoning. When asked why she did not have herself checked for the presence of drugs, she replied, ‘Because I'm not sure about it,’” the decision read. .
It added, “Records also show that complainant was able to text, talk, walk, change her clothes and leave her condominium unit to sleep at a friend's place, after the accused supposedly raped her. Likewise, complainant confirmed that she was not, at any stage of the incident, unconscious or fully deprived of her will power.”
Navarro thanked the court for granting him bail. He will be released from the Taguig City Jail Male Dormitory as soon as the requirements for bail are completed.