The Supreme Court issued a judgment that say: Bro Eli Soriano lost his standing in court. This is in reference to the RTC Court case. That is due to the fact that Bro Eli has not appeared in court for the arraignment bec obviously he exiled in Brazil prior to the court case. There was sufficient reason why his absence in court was necessary thus any injunction to this effect: flight is an indication of guilt must necessarily be met with consideration such as by the principle exception from the rule. The court should have considered these excuses as indeed exception from the rule if indeed it was part of due process. Still, presumption of innocence should inevitably be in effect. Instead, the court imposed a ruling that he lost his standing in court as it say:


What does it mean by the phrase “lost standing in court”?

Logically, it means the forfeiture of any right in law for any standing position in court. That as having no right to perform the following:

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

  1. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
  2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.
  3. The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[1] Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney’s fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

In short, standing or locus standi (in reference to the Soriano’s case) is the right and freedom of the defendant to defend himself in the court of law unless the charges are void or nullified or until a verdict is made. Soriano has standing due to the fact that the rape law harms him and must be contested for relief so as by the reality of his innocence, yet, that was forfeited as by his absence in the court hearing.

Yet is lost standing in court tantamount to a guilty verdict?

Lost standing is a conversion of defense into defeat. Meaning, the accused is defeated in the court case. But we have to note, that there is no evaluation of guilt that transpired. It is a defeat in terms of technicality rather than through evaluation of the merits of the case whereas, in terms of evaluation the rape case was formerly dismissed.

Exposing the Members Church of God International

Eli Soriano’s Homosexual Rape case

In November 2005, Eliseo Soriano, presiding minister of the notorious pseudo-Christian cult Members: Church of God International, was put on the Bureau of Immigration watchlist. The orderwas made by Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales on the request of the Pampanga Prosecutor’s Office.

In May 2006, Soriano was indicted on rape charges at the regional trial court of Macabebe, Pampanga, following a complaint filed by former MCGI assistant secretary general Daniel Veridiano that he was sexually assaulted in Apalit, Pampanga on two occasions. According tothe Philippine Daily Inquirer, in June 2008, Soriano allegedly abused his influence by directing Veridiano “to come into his room, massage him and have anal intercourse,” an act that was against the consent of Veridiano.

Macabebe Regional Trial Court Judge Manuel Siyangco issued the warrant of arrest. Soriano was allowed to post a ₱400,000 bail bond (₱200,000 for each count). The charge was dismissed but was later refiled in a higher court by the country’s Department of Justice Secretary, Raul Gonzales.

In November 2006, an arrest warrant was issued against Soriano by Judge Lucina Dayaon of Macabebe. After more than a year and a half of living as a fugitive, news came out that Soriano finally emerged from hiding and posted a ₱240,000 bail at a police Station in Pandacan, Manila on June 21, 2008.

On August 29, 2008, the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that Soriano and two others were sued for violation of Art. 171, Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (falsification of public documents) at the Manila City Prosecutor’s Office. It was discovered that the arresting officer, PO3 June Gumaru, and Soriano’s secretary, Belen Talentado, conspired in faking the certificate of detention to permit his release by posting bail for his rape case. PO3 Gumaru admitted in a sworn affidavit that he had never seen the church group leader, that Soriano did not really surrender to him, and that he is, in fact, still a fugitive

By August 2008, a “Red Notice” was issued against him by the International Police Commission (Interpol) [sic]. A “Red Notice” allows the arrest warrant issued by the requesting country to be circulated worldwide with the request that the wanted person be arrested with a view to extradition. As of August 2010, the case has been archived but not dismissed. Eliseo Soriano is presently an international fugitive in self-exile in Brazil, a country that has no extradition treaty with the Philippine government.

Did Bible or let say did Apostle Paul did that to his members?

Obviously NO!!

So the Secret of a False Prophet Revealed!!

Mar 29, 2015 · Public · in Timeline Photos


ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT OF RAPE”The foregoing facts, together with the rift going on between the INC and the ADD, which we cannot deny, only show that the complainant was undisputabley ill-motivated from the inception, and these necessarily, without any scintilla of a doubt, substantially affect, if not lessen his credibility as an unperjured affiant.

WHEREFORE premises having been considered, the undersigned recommends the DISMISSAL, as hereby DISMISSES, the complaint for rape filed by Daniel Verdiano against the respondent Eliseo Soriano docketed herein as IS No. 05-1-2459 & 2460.

So what is my point?

We cannot say, bro eli is guilty or not as there is no evaluation of guilt that transpired. Therefore, an appeal must be met provided, the defendant wills so.

Wikipedia says:

According to Pieter Cleppe of the think-tank Open Europe, in parts of Europe, in absentia trials essentially give defendants the ability to appeal twice—asking for a retrial at which they would be present and then potentially appealing the second verdict.

There are some guarantees in the legal system that make sure that it’s fair, that the rights of the defense are not being violated, while still making sure that justice is being done. In absentia judgments are common[…] you can criticize that, but it’s quite common.

In 1884, the Supreme Court of the United States held that

the legislature has deemed it essential to the protection of one whose life or liberty is involved in a prosecution for felony, that he shall be personally present at the trial, that is, at every stage of the trial when his substantial rights may be affected by the proceedings against him. If he be deprived of his life or liberty without being so present, such deprivation would be without that due process of law required by the Constitution.

Hopt v. Utah 110 US 574, 28 L Ed 262, 4 S Ct 202 (1884).

I asked an online free legal team on the matter:


Me: What is “lost standing in court”? Is it applicable in a fiscal level case?

Free legal: No. Its only in the court.

Me: Does it mean the accused is not entitled for defense? Can an accused who lost standing wins or its a testament of defeat?

Free legal: Lost standing in court means its a defeat.

The fact still remains, there is no evaluation of guilt that transpired, no weighing of evidences, no analytical due process therefore any decision the court imposed is not a conviction of guilt as per the merit of the case. Nothing is yet established to really impose a strong conviction therefore in matters of conviction, the rape case would always be inconclusive in terms of guilt unless, a full court procedure consummates.

Therefore on moral ground, we cannot accuse bro eli guilty of rape.



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


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. Much so, the court calling him “a man of low morals” was confirmatory of his guilt.

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 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.

Thank you.