Smart Ads

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Repost: DOJ Junks Deniece Cornejo's Rape Complaints vs Vhong Navarro



The Department of Justice has dismissed the rape and attempted rape complaints filed by model-actress Deniece Cornejo against actor-host Vhong Navarro.

Cornejo had accused Navarro of raping her on January 17 and January 22, the night of a controversial mauling incident that left the "It's Showtime" host seriously injured.

In a review resolution dated 6 September 2017, the DOJ reversed its original recommendation to indict Navarro on the said offenses and held that both Cornejo and her stories were not credible.

The evidence presented by Cornejo's camp did not establish probable cause to indict Navarro for the crime he was accused of committing, said the DOJ.

The department said it scrutinized the records of the case, but "such thorough scrutiny has failed to make us engender a well-founded belief that the rape and attempted rape described by complainant actually happened."

The DOJ conducted 3 investigations in connection with the case, but the charges against Navarro were dismissed in the first two investigations and Cornejo was indicted for perjury in the third.

In its review resolution, the DOJ said Cornejo “suffers from a very serious credibility issue,” as the department pointed out “major inconsistencies” in her three complaint-affidavits against Navarro.

“[Cornejo’s] story about the incident on January 17, 2014 changed from no rape (or anything amorous for that matter) happening (first complaint-affdavit), to rape being committed by force (second complaint affidavit), and finally to rape being committed rendering her dizzy and weak due to a date rape drug-laced wine (third complaint-affidavit)."

“On the other hand, complainant’s story about the incident on January 22, 2014 started from rape being committed by force (first complaint-affidavit), to absolutely having no mention about any incident (second complaint-affidavit), until the events morphed into a mere attempt to rape her (second complaint-affidavit),” the resolution read.

The DOJ also stressed Cornejo’s first complaint-affidavit contained less details than her second complaint-affidavit while “[c]ommon human experience dictates that a narration given close to the incident usually contains more details than one that is given later.”

“This is because in the former, the events or details are still fresh in the narrator’s mind, while the passage of time will make a person forget details,” the resolution read.

CCTV FOOTAGE

The resolution also mentioned the CCTV footage obtained from Cornejo’s condominium which showed her entering the elevator on the night of January 22, 2014 “only a minute” after Navarro stepped out of the elevator to proceed to her unit.

“In that time span, [Cornejo] claims that respondent was able to push her towards the living area of the condominium unit and pressed his entire weight against her, before her friends arrived and immediately restrained [Navarro].

“But then again… [i]n her first complaint-affidavit, [Cornejo] alleges that [Navarro] succeeded in violating her by pulling her hair and dragging her to the sofa, chasing her to the bedroom and pinning her down on the bed, and thereafter lifted one leg of her short pants and forced his hard penis into her vagina,” the resolution stated.

The DOJ also noted that another CCTV footage, recorded after Cornejo and her friends brought Navarro to a police station, showed “[C]ornejo’s actuations after the supposed rape incident… are inconsistent with the actuations and demeanor of a person who has just been violated.”

“Also, how come Cedric Lee was kissing complainant in the elevator after they had brought respondent to the police station?” the resolution pointed out.

Lee is among Cornejo’s friends who had been indicted for mauling Navarro on January 22, 2014.

51 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Grabe ang tagal na ng case na ito ngayon lang nagkaroon ng judgement.

      Delete
  2. Sino kaya ang padrino ni Vhong sa DOJ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yan din ang tanong ko.

      Delete
    2. Binasa ba talaga yung article? Nk explain yung reasons po

      Delete
    3. Di nya kelangan ng padrino, all he needs is the truth. #CCTV

      Delete
    4. Padrino talaga? Hindi ba pwedeng wala lang talagang merit yung kaso na sinampa kaya pinawalang-sala.

      Delete
    5. Kung may padrino bakit ang tagal?

      Delete
    6. 115PM, padrino talaga? It was well-explained in the DOJ Resolution that Deniece has credibility issues. She narrated different versions of the alleged rape.

      Delete
    7. Ummm... I mean.... you just lack intelligence if you didn't understand why they came to their conclusion and to merely state that it's because he knew someone in DOJ.

      Delete
    8. hindi ko gusto si vhong at wla ako galit kay deniece. Pero ito yug storya na simula pa lang dahil sa CCTV alam mo na kung sino nagsasai ng totoo. nakakalungkot lang kase pinatagal ng husto.

      Delete
    9. the allegations of rape were not proven. the defense were able to show that the complainant was not raped. hence, the doj dismissed the case.

      Delete
    10. Ung story(time, actions, reactions) ang pinagbasehan.

      Delete
  3. Makiki food sana...

    ReplyDelete
  4. did she actually believe that doj would believe her lies...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I still wonder how she was able to call for her friends in that very short period of time when vhong was with her in her place. How her friends were there right after vhong arrived.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yun din naisip ko. Yung timing diba.

      Delete
    2. As far as I remember, they were seen even before vhong arrived.

      Delete
    3. because they own a unit in that place, they were probably already inside the premises before Vhong arrived.Security wasn't lax, Denice's companions own a place there.

      Delete
  6. I don't like van. I find him annoying tsaka ang corny nya. Pro sa case na to, weak talaga ang case ni denice, we have to admit that. No matter what we think about him as a person, unjust din pg he gets to jail for something na walanag proof.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Walang credibility lol

    ReplyDelete
  8. hmmmm bakit DOJ ang may hawak at hindi RTC? paki explain mga classmates. tagal na nito eh bakit hindi naisampa sa RTC ang case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kaya nga. Tinatanong ko sino ba padrino ni Vhong sa DOJ?

      Delete
    2. Pag na junk ng rtc, inaakyat na da doj. Yun ang pagkaka alam ko.

      Delete
    3. Mga baks DOJ pa muna. Sila ang prosecutor designated to determine whether there is a probable cause dun sa mga complaints ni Denice kay Vhong. Pag may na determine sila na probable cause doon pa lang mag formally file ng case sa court. Yes, ganon nga katagal mga te. Wala pa judgment kase di pa naman sila nag full trial ng mga kaso nila ang lahat ay nasa preliminaries pa lang.

      Delete
    4. 6:46 ah ok thank you. Baligtad pala ako hehe pero ang tagal talaga mag kaso dito sa atin. Dapat mahaba ang pisi mo. Ilan yrs na din itong kaso nila.

      Delete
    5. 6:46 wow ganun katagal para malaman lang kung may probable cause? panu pa ang actual hearing? gaano katagal iyon?

      Delete
    6. Na junk na yan sa rtc

      Delete
    7. if i heard it right kagabi sa news, ang sabi nag-inhibit daw ang judges sa rtc kaya iniakyat sa doj

      Delete
    8. We were falsely accused as the cause of death of our elderly tenant. His son had a lawyer-wife working in the govt. They need show money for immig-Australia, hence, filed a case. It ran for 13yrs before it was dismissed.

      Delete
    9. Sad to hear your story 12:27. Ganyan talaga dito sa atin. Ang bagal ng pag usad ng mga cases

      Delete
    10. 6:55 kaya nga yung iba kinamamatayan na yung kaso sa sobrang bagal ng hustisya

      Delete
    11. in criminal cases, the complainant should file his or her case with the prosecutor's office. the prosecutor represents the people of the philippines and he is under the doj. the prosecutor will find first if there exist a probable cause that a crime has been committed. if there is, the prosecutor will continue with the case and will file the information in court. if there is no probable cause, the prosecutor shall dismiss the case.

      Delete
  9. Ganyan ang mga babae ngayon. They will do everything in their power to ruin men dahil alam nilang nasa kanila ang simpatya ng mga tao. Don't trust women who cry rape because they're lying!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats a bit too much generalization. Pano naman yung mga legit victims? Just because some women lie about being raped doesnt mean all victims are liars.

      Delete
    2. Huwag tayong mag-generalized, may mga tunay na biktima rin naman

      Delete
    3. 3:28 papunta na sa oa yang comment mo.

      Delete
    4. Hoy 3:28 kaya madaming rape victims ang hindi nagsusumbong sa kinauukulan at tahimik na nagdurusa sa kamay ng kanilang rapist ay dahil sa mga taong kagaya mo. Lawakan mo yang pagiisip bawasan pagiging tard

      Delete
    5. Sweeping generalization naman to. Case by case yan baks. This case, ano ba naman ang reputasyon ng accuser? Cctv did her in.

      Delete
  10. CONGRATS! U r vindicated!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bago maitaas sa korte (RTC) sng kaso, dadaan muna ito sa piskalya o Prosecutor (DOJ) at aalamin kung may probable cause ito upang maisampa sa korte. Ngayon, kung nakakita ang piskalya (DOJ) ng sapat na ebidensya, saka ito isasampa sa korte (RTC)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. grabe pala talaga sa bagal ng justice system sa pinas ano? prelim pa lang pala yan inabot na ng taon

      Delete
  12. Mahirap talaga pag ikaw ang accuser, kasi nasayo ang burden of proof. Swerte mo kung marami kang ebidensya, pero kung kulang sorry ka na lang. medyo nakakaworry din yun kasi pano kung nagsasabi ka naman ng totoo pero wala kang mahagilap na enough proof. Magbabayad ang may sala, di man sa batas- pero di makakaligtas sa mata ng Diyos.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mahirap din yan wrongfully accused ka. Walang evidence of guilt pero may evidence na pinakita na hindi likely yung claim nya. So it's not words against words. It's words against cctv

      Delete
    2. di ba nga the resorts world incident last june ang dami nilang versions of the story, when the cctv footage surfaced tapos ang haka-haka, case closed, kasi it was a credible evidence.

      Delete
  13. Mag pakatino ka na ha Vhong...pakasalan mo na yang girlfriend mo!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Saklap naman, masabihan ka ng not credible. Aray!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Buti na lang may CCTV.

    ReplyDelete
  16. At ang alam ko pa, hanggat walang kaso, pwede kang mag file ng case uli. Kaya mas mabuti pang naiakyat at na dismiss, kesa tong hindi naisampa ang kaso.

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...