WE ONCE handled a rape case that was frustrating at first. The client (Jimmy), the suspected rapist, was arrested by the police several hours after the supposed victim told her mother that they had sexual relations without her consent.
According to the revised penal code, rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge with a woman with force, threat or intimidation.
The case was investigated by a public prosecutor (or fiscal). Jimmy argued that the sexual encounter between him and the complainant could not have been consummated without the latter’s consent because it took place inside a motel where lovers go for privacy.
***
The complainant, a full-grown adult, did not say that she was drugged, intoxicated or otherwise deprived of reason to be unable to object to the intentions of the respondent.
The rooms in a motel are private places but it is essentially a public establishment that has receptionists, waiters and room attendants. The woman could have walked out or alerted other people that she was being attacked.
Yet the complainant was with the respondent inside the motel room for more than an hour and even allowed Jimmy to bring her home using public transport.
We argued that the circumstances suggested consensual sex – not rape.
***
The investigating fiscal could have dismissed the complaint, but he did not. The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an Information for rape without recommending bail.
The DOJ ignored our arguments and said that it was best that the case be tried before a judge. The defenses could then be amplified fully, and the judge can observe the demeanor of the parties while testifying.
Jimmy was eventually acquitted, precisely because the complainant’s story was difficult to believe. But he was freed after more than three years of in detention.
In the Philippines, proving one’s innocence in a criminal trial can take very long. That would be less stressful if one were out on bail. But the accused in capital offenses like rape are hardly granted bail while undergoing trial.
***
That is the prospect that television personality Vhong Navarro is now facing. Unless the trial court can make a preliminary finding that the evidence is weak Navarro will undergo trial while in detention.
The prosecution or the complainant will nonetheless be allowed to present “strong” evidence of guilt, and that consequently bail must be denied. That process can also take a long period of time.
The DOJ had earlier said that it did not find enough evidence to indict Navarro for rape. The Court of Appeals reversed this finding and directed the DOJ to formally file a rape charge against the dancer/comedian.
***
The Secretary of Justice is a member of the Cabinet. He reports to the President. The determination of probable cause, or the degree of proof that will compel the State to prosecute the commission of a crime, belongs to the executive department.
This process called preliminary investigation can eliminate unmeritorious cases. The State, aside from prosecuting offenders, also has the duty to protect the innocent against mindless harassment as well as the trouble and expense of a public trial.
This function is seldom disrupted by the judicial department. It is only when the DOJ commits grave abuse of discretion that the courts exercise their power of review under the Constitution.
The Court of Appeals exercised that power in Navarro’s case. Whether or not it was correct in exercising that power will most likely reach the Supreme Court – the final arbiter./PN
