A lawyer has this comment on the issue between Vhong Navarro and Deniece Cornejo
Kapamilya star Vhong Navarro appeared to be “naisahan” and this is what a lawyer thinks happened in cases filed by model Deniece Cornejo.
Vhong surrendered to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on September 19 after the Taguig Metropolitan Court issued an arrest warrant against him for acts of lasciviousness. He posted bail but still, he was not able to go home that day.
It was because of the warrant of arrest issued by the Taguig Regional Trial Court Branch 69 for the rape case filed by Deniece with no bail recommended. A
Atty. Ranny Randolf Libayan, in his vlog commentary about this issue said that Vhong Navarro was “naisahan.” He pointed out that for an arrest warrant with bail recommended, it is easy to deal with it because you just need to follow the conditions stated.
As a lawyer, Libayan said that in this situation, they would prepare everything in order for their client to have the shortest time to be held by the authorities. He added that this process could take a short period of time but it appeared that Vhong’s camp did not expect the arrest warrant for the rape case.
“Pag labas ng warrant of arrest niya sa rape, sabi doon, there’s no bail recommended,” the lawyer said. Libayan also clarified that there is no such thing as a “non-bailable crime” or “walang piyansa”.
The bail that Vhong Navarro paid for the acts of lasciviousness case can only prevent him from being detained if “there is no other reason for his detention” and then, the arrest warrant for rape was issued.
“Yung short trip lang sana sa detention center, magiging long trip na,” Libayan said. He said that the remedy to this is to file a motion to fix bail. The lawyer explained that there are two elements that will deny bail. First, if the case is punishable by Reclusion Perpetua (the highest penalty) and the second one if the evidence of guilt is strong.
Libayan said that the camp of Vhong Navarro could file a motion and argue that even though rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, they can claim that the evidence of guilt is not strong.
What can you say about this?