Is Soriano guilty on his rape case? Obviously, there was no court decision yet despite it elevated to the DOJ after a fiscal dismissed it. Therefore by the principle: a man is presumed innocent unless proven guilty, makes Eli Soriano innocent as there was no court decision yet.
And indeed, he exiled to Brazil unattending prosecution bec of allegedly death threat. Bec self-preservation is an utmost concern than his presence in court, the principle: Flight is a manifestation of guilt, is inapplicable to him as a primary concern gets in the way–self-preservation!
He did not apply for police security as apprehension apparently was strong as he knew the Iglesia ni Cristo, has apparently widespread influence even in the police force during those times.
How about Felix Manalo? Was he a convicted rapist?
Yes. Felix sued his accuser in her rape allegation for libel. The court decided in favor of the defendant and rape victim, Rosita Trillanes. This revelation, is a tremendous validation that the court looked on Manalo as an aggressor, the rapist, having lose the case to prove his innocence. Therefore, in essence, has placed him in a guilty status.
Please refer to the screenshot below extracted from https://mateopage.wordpress.com/tag/raul-gonzales/
Who is the rapist? Is it not the one who failed to disprove the rape allegation in a libel case? And who failed to prove Rosita Trillanes lying?
Court record shows Felix lose the libel case, he failed to falsify trillanes rape allegation therefore indirectly is a proclamation of his guilt.
Therefore, Felix manalo was indirectly convicted of rape.
Objection though were saying that Macarthur nullified the court of appeals and its processes extant before the said commonwealth therefore putting its past decisions as having no legal effect as they quoted:
Assoc. Justice Gregorio Perfecto stated:
“…It is evident from the above-mentioned words that it was the purpose of General MacArthur to declare null and void all acts of government under the Japanese regime, and he used, in section 3 of he dispositive part, the word laws, as pertaining to the legislative branch, the word regulations, as pertaining to the executive branch, and lastly, the word processes, as pertaining to the judicial branch of the government which functioned under the Japanese regime.
It is reasonable to assume that he might include in the word “process.” besides those judicial character, those of executive or administrative character. At any rate, judicial processes cannot be excluded…”
G.R. No. L-5
Lets say, all judicial process in the past were included but does that reverse the fact that there was court process, evaluation and litigation transpired which through it, Felix Manalo’s guilt was established indirectly through verification of the rape allegation? By Mcarthur’s decree that would have been invalidated but we cannot deny that at one time Felix’s guilt was established. That as reason to believe, that through that evaluation process, we cannot rely completely on McArthur’s interference as there was no court procedure negating that court verdict. For a thinking mind, it cannot be discredited much so, that there was an evaluation and analysis. The intellectual as well as the investigative context poured to analyze it, cannot be discredited much so that it was conclusive. Manalo lose the libel case.
Did any court procedure disprove the court verdict which upholds the rape allegation as true likewise the court view that Manalo was “a man of low morals”?
None so far.
By this, the MacArthur’s decree interfering with the japanese-sponsored judicial body bears little weight.
Nothing have disproven yet the court verdict much so the one saying Felix is “a man of low morals”! It was only cancelled by the decree. Somehow, it has yet traces of credibility seeing that it was by evaluation.
Legally invalidated? Yes, it could be. But morally, can we say it too was invalidated seeing that it was established the guilt of Felix indirectly through evaluation process? I dont think so.
Legally invalidated in the Philippines but obviously not with the japanese govt thus there is still binding power in legal terms to call Manalo a rapist–through the legality within the Japanese jurisdiction.
Lastly, INC members have tried to object by saying Rosita retracted from her rape allegation, returned to INC and eventually became a deaconess. That as formidable they say is testamental of the vindication of Felix from the rape charge.
In context of law, a retraction is not valid unless a valid reason is established yet in that case, nothing to that effect was seen, thus the court verdict promulgating the indirectly convicted and guilty status of Felix stands. Secondly, Felix was never exonerated legally. The mere fact that Rosita embraced INC again and became deaconess is not valid reason to vindicate Felix bec there was no legal means that proves it was an honest move. She could have been offered a lucrative sum she cannot decline or it could be a case of stockholm syndrome. Thus, having not legally established as an honest move cannot by any means dissolve the court verdict that Felix lose in the libel case. He failed to prove innocence which by far is sufficient ground to conclude he was a rapist.
Note: My commentary is based solely from my sources above. If it is truthful or not, its your liability to verify.