WHO IS THE REAL RAPIST: FELIX MANALO OR ELI SORIANO?

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:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Douglas MacArthur, General, United States Army, as Commander-in-Chief of the military forces committed to the liberation of the Philippines, do hereby proclaim and declare:

1. That the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines is, subject to the supreme authority of the Government of the United States, the sole and only government having legal and valid jurisdiction over the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control;

2. That the laws now existing on the statute books of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are in full force and effect and legally binding upon the people in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control; and

3. That all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control; and

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.

How come?

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. 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.

Thank you.

Advertisements

ANALYSIS: THE ROSITA TRILLANES RAPE CASE & ANGEL-TENNY MANALO 

Paraphrasing in English, the article above says: Rosita Trillanes, an expelled Iglesia NI Cristo member is accused of vindictive measures against Felix Manalo through a documentary testimony of being Manalo’s rape victim. The court convicted Rosita of libel after Felix retaliated with a court case. Rosita appealed and was acquitted. After 10 years, Rosita retracted from his accusation of rape and asked for forgiveness from Felix. She became a diakonesa after another 10 years and died as an INC member.

Now, let us look at the Tenny-Angel Manalo excommunication case. Why were they expelled from the church?

The news report say, Angel and Tenny were interfering in the church administration affairs through the you tube agenda of uploading anti-INC allegation of abduction and security threat to gain sympathy which logically, would jeopardize the church harmony or unity, thus the necessary remedy of expulsion. Thus they were expelled.

Looking at both cases: The Rosita Trillanes case vis-à-vis Angel-Tenny case, similarly both were either slanderer or blasphemers against the church administration. One by an allegedly false accusation of rape implicating the leader which naturally was a divisive force within the church. The latter in like manner–divisive liars. In essence, both have identical aspect of slander. Yet Rosita Trillaness was reinstated as a member after penance. The question is, would it be the same case for Angel and Tenny and all other expelled members having the same magnitude of offense? Would expelled members be reinstated provided they resort to sincere penance?

Logically, they would be so to be fair, in like manner, how a grave offense of a rape accusation by Rosita Trillanes was forgiven and the accuser Rosita Trillanes reinstated in the church.

Wikipedia says:

Biblically, is it allowed for a validly convicted and expelled offender to be reinstated to the church?

Nope. There is no law allowing the reinstatement of validly expelled members. They would be placed under god’s judgment as it say:

1 Corinthians 5:12-13

[12]For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

[13]But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

But is it not church obligation to snatch those destined to hell?

Jude 1:23

[23]And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Yes. But obviously this is for those who were never Christians and never repented. Once you’re a christian, there is no more second repentance for mortal sins as it say:

2 Corinthians 7:10

[10]For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of…

Hebrews 10:26-27

[26]For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

[27]But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Therefore, snatching from the fire is applicable only to those that never had christian baptism, or in short, was never christian bec a true enlightened christian once he backslide with mortal sins can never be redeemed anymore and as the verse above implied, has no more acceptable second repentance. Therefore, snatching from the fire is inapplicable for expelled backsliders, bec there is no acceptable second repentance from mortal sins for backsliding Christians. You cannot snatch backsliders from the fire anymore as they cannot be redeemed anymore. Therefore snatching from the fire is applicable for non-baptized, and never-been-christian entities, logically speaking. Implying, Rosita Trillanes reinstatement to the church is an evangelical blunder. Why?
Bec there is no christian law allowing the reinstatement of a validly expelled members. And it is gross misconduct, to go beyond where the bible is silent. We do not do things beyond the limits of biblical sanctions. Where the bible is silent, there must not be any attempts of doctrinal addition as it say:

Ecclesiastes 3:14

[14]I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

But why does INC persisted on this doctrinal blunder–the reinstatement of validly expelled offenders–unmentioned in the bible?