Roxanne Cabañero rape complaint against Vhong Navarro junked

An excerpt from Fiscal Christine Perolino’s resolution regarding Roxanne Cabañero’s rape complaint against Vhong Navarro dated September 8, 2014: "A careful examination of complainant’s allegations reveal circumstances that are contradictory, suspicious and of doubtful nature."


Ibinasura ng Pasig Prosecutor’s Office ang reklamong panghahalay na inihain ni Roxanne Cabañero, 24, laban sa aktor na si Vhong Navarro, 37.

Ito ay sa kadahilanang kuwestiyonable at hindi tugma ang mga detalyeng nakasaad sa sinumpaang salaysay ni Roxanne, kaugnay ng diumano’y karahasang ginawa ng aktor sa aspiring beauty queen.

Bunsod nito, wala umanong sapat na ebidensiyang makpagpapatunay na may “probable cause” para sa reklamong inihain ni Roxanne laban kay Vhong.

Base ito sa resolusyon ni Assistant City Prosecutor Christine Perolino na may petsang September 8.

“A careful examination of complainant’s allegations reveal circumstances that are contradictory, suspicious and of doubtful nature,” saad sa isang bahagi ng resolusyon.

Nakakuha ang PEP.ph (Philippine Entertainment Portal) ng kopya ng resolusyon ngayong araw, October 3.

Ipinaliwanag din dito na, ayon sa probisyon ng Article 266 ng Revised Penal Code, ang “rape” ay maituturing na “sexual assault,” kung saan ginamitan ng puwersa at pananakot ang isang biktima.

Ayon kay Fiscal Perolino, ang eksaktong petsa at oras kung kailan nangyari ang insidente ay hindi maituturing na elemento sa “crime of rape.”

Ngunit kataka-taka umanong hindi detalyado ang kuwento ni Roxanne kung paano nanlaban ang dalaga noong mga oras na siya ay hinalay diumano ni Vhong.

Nakasaad pa sa naturang resolusyon: “It may be argued that intimidation is very subjective and must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule.

“Still, it is improbable for a victim of rape not to make an outcry against an unarmed rapist when she had every opportunity to do so.

“Although the Court does not in any way expect the complainant to resist unto death, no woman would meekly give in to a sexual intruder were her life not in serious jeopardy. (People vs. Salem, id.)

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

“This only casts doubt as to the veracity of complainant’s allegations as there was no clear indication how she struggled with respondent when he sexually violated her.”

Kinuwestiyon din ang sinumpaang salaysay ni Roxanne kung saan sinabi ng dalaga na inihatid siya ni Vhong sa Astoria Hotel pagkatapos siyang gawan ng karahasan ng aktor.

Gayong sa unang bahagi ng kanyang testimonya, sinabi ni Roxanne na sinundo siya ni Vhong “15 meters away from the hotel lobby,” dahil umiiwas daw ang aktor na mamataan sa pampublikong lugar.

"Said circumstances as alleged by complainant are not only contradictory but also defies logic, for it is unnatural human reaction and contrary to common experiences and observation considering her earlier assertions that respondent avoided to be seen in public with her.

“Moreso, after he allegedly sexually ravished her that he would dropped her off in front of her hotel when his prime consideration was not be seen publicly as the reason for his earlier behavior when he picked her up at a distance from the hotel.”

Hindi rin umano natural ang reaksiyon ni Roxanne na pagkatapos siyang ibaba ni Vhong sa tapat ng Astoria Hotel ay nakuha pa ng dalaga na obserbahan ang pag-alis ng sasakyan ng aktor.

Nabanggit kasi ng dalaga sa kanyang salaysay na huminto pa ang sasakyan ng aktor “20 meters away” mula sa hotel, upang lumipat ng passenger seat at saka pasakayin ang kasama nitong dalawang lalaki.

“For evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experiences and observation of mankind can approve under circumstances.

“(People vs. Sodsod, 404 SCRA 39) The aforementioned circumstances run counter to these principles.”

Bukod sa kuwestiyonableng testimonya ni Roxanne, hindi rin umano nakapagbigay ng sapat ng dahilan ang complainant kung bakit hinayaan nitong lumipas ang apat na taon bago pormal na naghain ng reklamo laban kay Vhong.

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

Mismong si Roxanne ang naghayag sa kanyang Investigation Data Form na nangyari ang insidenteng panghahalay diumano ni Vhong sa kanya bandang 11 P.M. ng April 24, 2010 hanggang 1 A.M. ng April 25.

Ngunit nanindigan si Vhong na pawang kasinungalingan ang alegasyong ibinabato sa kanya ni Roxanne.

Bilang patunay, naghain ang aktor ng pitong testigong magpapatunay na kasama siya sa comedy concert ni Vice Ganda sa Island Cove, Cavite, noong mga oras na iyon.

Iginiit din ni Vhong na nanatili siya sa naturang venue mula 4 P.M. ng April 24 hanggang 1:30 A.M. ng April 25.

JUNKED PERJURY COMPLAINT AGAINST ROXANNE. Sa kabilang banda, ibinasura rin ng Pasig Prosecutor’s Office ang reklamong perjury na inihain ni Vhong laban kay Roxanne.

Ito ay sa kadahilanang nakasentro ang perjury complaint sa hindi tugmang impormasyong ibinigay ni Roxanne sa kanyang sinumpaang salaysay at nilagdaanan niyang Investigation Data Form.

Sabi pa sa joint resolution ni Fiscal Perolino, “However, the exact date when the alleged rape happened was not the main fact subject of inquiry in that rape charge and it was not an element of the crime.

“What appears is that the date is material only with regard to complainant’s defense therein.”


WE RECOMMEND


FROM THE SUMMIT MEDIA NETWORK


SPONSORED CONTENT


COMMENTS

Loading comments

THIS JUST IN