Eli Soriano was found guilty from a libel case charged on him by the Iglesia NI Cristo for accusing them as a killer church, terrorist, thief and deceiver/manloloko. The news report say:
INC wins libel case vs ‘Dating Daan’ evangelist
By Janvic Mateo, The Philippine Star
- MANILA – A Quezon City court has ordered evangelist Eliseo Soriano to pay religious group Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) a fine of P100,000 for the supposed malicious and libelous remarks that he uttered in his television show 10 years ago.
In a 19-page decision, Regional Trial Court Branch 92 Judge Eleuterio Bathan said elements of libel were present in the April 23 and 27, 2003 broadcasts of Soriano’s “Ang Dating Daan,” in which he uttered statements against INC such as “Iglesiang pumapatay ng kapwa tao, manloloko, terrorist, magnanakaw, and mamamatay tao.”
“There is no question that the broadcasts were made public and imputed to Iglesia Ni Cristo defects or circumstances tending to cause it dishonor, discredit and contempt,” read the decision promulgated on Monday.
“Soriano’s remarks… are libelous per se, uncalled for and misleading information to the public. Taken as a whole, the broadcasts suggest Iglesia Ni Cristo is a killer, swindler, a spy, and a terrorist and a thief which is contrary to the doctrines and teachings of every religious sect,” added Bathan.
Soriano failed to attend the promulgation of the decision. Bathan said this takes away his chance of appealing the decision.
During his arraignment in 2005, the evangelist refused to enter a plea, prompting the court to enter a plea of “not guilty” for him.
He also submitted a waiver of presence during the pre-trial conference, in which he admitted that “whenever his name is mentioned (during the trial), he is the same person alleged in the information.”
Records show that Soriano’s lawyer presented witnesses stating that ministers of INC in its television show “Ang Tamang Daan” have repeatedly attacked Soriano and he was just retaliating against the allegations.
But in his decision, Bathan said that the defense of self-defense is without merit as it “will not negate the presence of existence of malice.” He added that this kind of defense is only available in crimes against persons.
The judge also noted that retaliation is different from self-defense.
“He should have filed the necessary or corresponding criminal and/or civil case against (INC) in order to protect his (Soriano) interest. He did not, but instead, made retaliation against INC,” read his decision.
“In doing so, the accused disregarded the true function of courts of justice and took the law into his hands,” he added.
End
Commentary:
In my own opinion, it seem that the verdict was forced to subjective, bias and unfair level. The possibility of pay-out could be a reality or if not, influence or imprudence. Why? There were no libelous with something veracious or have the essence of truth in it. Let me show you.
Eli Soriano accused INC of being:
- A thief/magnanakaw
Logically, he could have meant it in metaphor terms. They steal gullible souls to damnation.
- Deceiver/manloloko
Indeed, as manifested several times such as by distorting video tapes to mangle his personality. That’s one. There are others such as portraying him as sodomizer through porn komiks without valid evidence, in short, it was not validated.
- Spy/tiktik
If this is a lie, should it suffice for the whole declaration to be at par with one seemingly lie?
“Soriano’s remarks… are libelous per se, uncalled for and misleading information to the public. Taken as a whole, the broadcasts suggest Iglesia Ni Cristo is a killer, swindler, a spy, and a terrorist and a thief which is contrary to the doctrines and teachings of every religious sect,” added Bathan.
- Terrorist
Indeed. Giving the infamous Amurao death threat and calling for terrorist Abu sayyaf to track Eli is terrorism, I guess. It is a psychological deterrent/terror.
- Killer church
I have some circumstantial evidences to apparently back it up. But on personal note, this is just my opinion, and not aiming to confirm anything. One, the Amurao death threat, calling for a funeral service to fetch Eli at the airport, with red carpet and candles and jovial rest in peace greeting.
Meaningless bluff?
If they are the true church, having been the ground and pillar of truth, they should have known that giving harmful remarks such as those are prohibited as it say:
Philippians 2:15
[15]That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
The INC remark was psychologically harmful as it was a chilling and disturbing deterrent. Secondly, calling for Abu Sayyaf to track Eli down is likewise a psychological harm, for one to fear for his life. Influenced, the Abu Sayyaf, or its sympathizer might respond to the call. Thirdly, the amansec account, the hitman assigned to kill Eli Soriano failed, and testified. Fourthly, Minister Bularan, representative of the church uttered a cynical remark as I’ll paraphrase:
If mataro (mcgi, ex-inc) sits close to a hothead INC, and the INC breaks his neck….truly, (the breaking of the neck) that is human nature!
You can view it here
These are seemingly evidences to prove INC is a killer church. Killer in the sense that it has the tendency to harm esp to kill, as the Bularan remark emphasized, and was never corrected, meaning, it is an acceptable and integral church custom. So when they broadcasted the Amurao death threat and Abu Sayyaf reinforcement call to hunt Soriano, they were not bluffing as corroborated by the Bularan remark of “Bali leeg”. Indeed by such remarks as a whole supporting the concept of malice, they somehow admitted of their capacity to kill. The fact that they never relegated a public apology is proof of its nature–an integral church norms so was it merely a bluff? Will the court see threats as mere bluffing having the reality of INC’s hateful ploy of destroying Soriano on air, as witnessed in other forms besides the malicious threats such as distorting facts, inventing facts, for defamation?!
Taking all these to account:
- The Amurao death threat as a psychological deterrent.
- The Abu Sayyaf reinforcement call to hunt soriano.
- The Bularan cynical “bali leeg” remark.
- The Amansec killing Soriano attempt as assignment from INC.
Including:
- Ex-INC Lydia Manuyag’s testimony of having INC hitman friends.
- A head deacon planning to kill.
These are circumstantial evidences when taken as a whole corroborates an inherent nature–malice or the will to harm, an inherent trait of a killer church.
And you’re saying, you have no capacity to kill? Or are you saying you’re merely malicious words with no action intended? But Bularan or Abu Sayyaf might have killed soriano?!
Now as for the judge who presided over this arraignment, was his judgment prudent, to make all Eli Soriano’s accusation as libelously at par with each other–as gravely, libel? Nevertheless, this is not the final judicial front line. Having the reality of a higher judge, the supreme court or God, this verdict is not yet a confirmation of a criminal act as the possibility of a dissenting view from the higher court implied it as mere judicial opinion not necessarily confirmatory–or decisive!
Note: you can validate. I’m providing facts.
A BEAUTIFUL MIND 