Case Summary (G.R. No. 263329)
Key Individuals and Context
Petitioner: Ferdinand “Hiong” H. Navarro, a public figure accused of sexual offenses.
Respondent: Deniece Milinette Cornejo, private individual alleging rape and attempted rape; also the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the City Prosecutor of Taguig City.
Other Actors: Prosecutor General, trial courts in Taguig (Metropolitan and Regional Trial Courts), Court of Appeals (CA), Supreme Court.
Setting: Alleged incidents at Forbeswood condominium, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig, in January 2014.
Key Dates
January 17 & 22, 2014 – Alleged rape and attempted rape incidents.
January 29 & February 27, 2014; October 16, 2015 – Three complaints filed by Cornejo.
April 4 & July 4, 2014; September 6, 2017 – DOJ and Taguig prosecutors dismiss complaints for lack of probable cause.
July 21, 2022 – CA grants certiorari and orders filing of informations.
February 8, 2023 – Supreme Court promulgates decision under the 1987 Constitution.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – Separation of powers; prosecutorial prerogative.
• Rules of Court, Rule 65 – Extraordinary remedies.
• Revised Penal Code (RPC) Art. 266-A (rape), as amended by RA 8353; Art. 336 (acts of lasciviousness).
• RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act).
Procedural History
Three preliminary investigations were conducted on Cornejo’s complaints. The DOJ and Taguig Prosecutor dismissed them for lack of probable cause. Cornejo sought review in DOJ, which denied relief. She filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition in the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The CA reversed and directed the filing of rape and lasciviousness informations. Navarro petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, seeking dismissal of the CA decision and trial-court cases.
Facts Alleged by Complainant
Cornejo’s first affidavit (January 17, 2014): Navarro visits, offers wine; she declines; he leaves upon her request—no rape alleged.
Second affidavit (same date): After she asks him to leave, he allegedly becomes aggressive, forces oral and vaginal rape.
Third affidavit (January 22, 2014): She sips spiked wine, becomes dizzy, is overpowered, endures forced oral and vaginal rape; later, he attempts a second assault while friends intervene. She also alleges discovery of “date-rape” drug and his personal items.
Counter-Allegations and Parallel Complaints
Navarro claims consensual encounters on both dates, denies force. He and his companions initiated counter-charges against Cornejo and friends for serious illegal detention, grave coercion, and perjury. Taguig courts convicted Cornejo and a co-accused of grave coercion for the January 22 incident.
Prosecutorial Findings and Dismissals
DOJ Panel and Taguig Prosecutor found glaring and material inconsistencies across Cornejo’s three affidavits—shifting narratives on consent, wine, timing, and presence of witnesses. They ruled these contradictions rendered her story inherently unbelievable and insufficient to establish probable cause for rape or attempted rape. They emphasized the summary nature of preliminary investigation, its need to protect the innocent from baseless prosecutions, and the duty to dismiss when probable cause is lacking.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA held that issues of credibility and evidentiary sufficiency belong to the trial court, not the prosecutor. It ruled the DOJ committed grave abuse by weighing inconsistencies as if at trial and ordered Taguig prosecutors to file informations for (a) rape (RPC Art. 266-A) and (b) acts of l
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 263329)
Facts and Parties
- Petitioner Ferdinand “Vhong” H. Navarro is accused by respondent Deniece Milinette Cornejo of rape and attempted rape in three separate complaints.
- The Secretary of Justice and the City Prosecutor of Taguig City are impleaded as respondents in their prosecutorial capacities.
- Navarro filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul Court of Appeals (CA) orders reversing DOJ dismissals of Cornejo’s complaints.
- Navarro also moved for injunctive reliefs to enjoin ongoing prosecutions for rape and acts of lasciviousness.
Antecedents and Complaints Filed
- First Complaint (Jan. 29, 2014; NPS No. XV-16-INV-14A-00096): alleges rape on January 22, 2014 in Cornejo’s condominium unit.
- Second Complaint (Feb. 27, 2014; NPS No. XV-16-INV-14B-00190): alleges rape on January 17, 2014 in the same unit.
- Third Complaint (Oct. 16, 2015; NPS Nos. XVI-INV-16E-00174 & XVI-INV-15J-00815): consolidates both incidents—rape on January 17 and attempted rape on January 22, 2014.
Cornejo’s Allegations in the First Complaint (January 22, 2014 Incident)
- Navarro brought food and visited Cornejo’s unit around 8–9 p.m., was invited in without formal sign-in.
- While she cooked, he stroked her hair and back; she asked him to stop and leave.
- He allegedly grew angry, grabbed her by the hair, dragged her to the sofa, pinned her on the bed, kissed and forced her face into his genitals.
- She struggled, heard her phone ringing, attempted to call for help.
- He exposed her underwear and tried to insert his penis into her vagina.
- Cornejo’s friends miraculously arrived, rescued her, and escorted her to a friend’s place; later, her unit was ransacked.
Navarro’s Counter-Allegations to the First Complaint
- He asserts the January 22 encounter never occurred as alleged; he accuses Cornejo and friends of serious illegal detention, grave coercion, physical injuries, threats, and perjury.
- Navarro maintains that his January 17 encounter was consensual oral sex following wine and flirtation.
Cornejo’s Allegations in the Second Complaint (January 17, 2014 Incident)
- Navarro visited with wine; she declined drinking and worked on her laptop.
- When her friend cancelled, she asked Navarro to leave; he teased her about “sleeping over,” then became aggressive.
- He pulled at her hair, caressed her arms, forced oral sex, then inserted his penis into her vagina despite her cries and struggles.
Dismissal of First and Second Complaints by DOJ and OCP Taguig
- April 4, 2014: DOJ panel dismissed First Complaint for lack of probable cause and found probable cause against Cornejo et al. for