IS FELIX MANALO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE SO-CALLED RAPE CASE AND IMMORAL ACTS?
THE Judicial Court of any land must not proclaimed a person “guilty of a crime” unless that person is “guilty beyond reasonable doubt.” The court must not base their decision on “rumors” but on “facts.” The Japanese sponsored Court of Appeals declared on 1942 that Brother Felix Y. Manalo was a “man of low morals” and reversed the decision of the lower court (the Court of First Instance of Manila) on the libel case against Rosita Trillanes filed by Brother Felix Y. Manalo. The lower court found Rosita Trillanes “guilty beyond reasonable doubt.”
Did the Japanese sponsored Court of Appeals found Brother Felix Y. Manalo "guilty beyond reasonable doubt” in saying that he is a "man of low morals"? Did they based their decisions on facts? See for yourself:
“After the case had been tried in the lower Court according to the established procedures, the appellant, THROUGH HER TESTIMONY AND THAT OF HER WITNESS SUCCEEDED, TO OUR MIND, IN SHOWING SATISFACTORILY that while she was faithful, and the offended party a chief of the “Iglesia ni Cristo,” she was abducted by the offended; that for this, she was the object of threats; that the offended had illicit amorous relations with the wife of another minister of the church; that in the presence of the appellant, the offended tried to rape a maiden that the reason WHY A CERTAIN LILOY separated from the said church, was because the offended had tried to abduct HIS WIFE CALLED AMADA; that the aggrieved parties and victims of the offended due to said motives, were afraid to talk in view of threat that they would be injured and killed if they did so; that such conduct followed by the offended, resulted in the birth of two children BY A CERTAIN BASILIA Santos, of Paco; that when the appellant refused to follow the offended from the house of A CERTAIN PROTACIO, in Pasay, where she already had her as a mistress, to another house, she was the object of the threats through a revolver, thus succeeding in making her stay in another place; and in the practice followed by the offended of seducing devout women of the said church, whether single or married, he cited the many wives that Solomon had, and that the man created by God, as himself, has aright to happiness, for which his desires should be acceded to, for this would be a meritorious act in the eyes of God.” (Emphasis mine)
Take note of what the “decision” said, “a certain Liloy,” “a certain Basilia,” “a certain Protacio.” These only prove that these people did not appeared in the court. Thus, they accepted only the words of the accused without asking to show evidences to prove the truthfulbess of her words or statements. If the accused has shown “evidences” of her words, why only “a certain Liloy,” “a certain Basilia,” “a certain Protacio.”?
Would you accept as true and fact what a person is saying if he was asked to show evidence but he answered, “That’s true because I heard that to A CERTAIN Liloy.” Would you accept that a certain person is immoral because according to the accuser “he had an adulterous relationship with A CERTAIN Basilia”?
Also, these words “a certain Liloy,” “a certain Basilia,” “a wife called Amada,” “a certain Protacio,” prove that what the decision said as “her witness” (take note that it’s singular, “her witness”) was not those people she mentioned in her testimony (and even in her letter). Pioneer ministers and brethren mentioned that Rosita’s witness was “Reymundo Mansilungan” himself (the “mastermind” of the conspiracy against Brother Felix Y. Manalo).
Thus, these statement mentioned by the “decision” of the Japanese sponsored Court of Appeals are only based on the testimony of Rosita Trillanes and her so-called witness (Reymundo Mansilungan): “…she was abducted by the offended; that for this, she was the object of threats; that the offended had illicit amorous relations with the wife of another minister of the church; that in the presence of the appellant, the offended tried to rape a maiden that the reason WHY A CERTAIN LILOY separated from the said church, was because the offended had tried to abduct his wife called Amada; that the aggrieved parties and victims of the offended due to said motives, were afraid to talk in view of threat that they would be injured and killed if they did so; that such conduct followed by the offended, resulted in the birth of two children BY A CERTAIN BASILIA Santos, of Paco; that when the appellant refused to follow the offended from the house of a certain Protacio, in Pasay, where she already had her as a mistress, to another house, she was the object of the threats through a revolver, thus succeeding in making her stay in another place; and in the practice followed by the offended of seducing devout women of the said church, whether single or married, he cited the many wives that Solomon had, and that the man created by God, as himself, has aright to happiness, for which his desires should be acceded to, for this would be a meritorious act in the eyes of God.”
Also noticeable is that the defendant (Rosita) failed to produced or named the "other victims." Remember that it was the Japanese occupation period and during that time Brother Felix Y. Manalo was harassed and was arrested several times by the Japanese. It is very surprising that the said Court accepted the words of a person that “he raped many women” without showing or naming to the court the "victims." It is like saying “he killed many people” but failed to produce the victims’ bodies or even the “names” of the so-called victims. Is that justice if that person will be convicted on mere words or statement of other without showing any strong evidence/s?
It is likely that if a person will say to the court that “he raped many women,” the court will surely ask the names of those “women.” If the person will answer, “I don’t know the names because I only heard that to a certain Reymundo,” surely the Court will dismiss that statement and proclaimed that as only a “rumor” and not a fact.
The decision also said that:
“TO BOLSTER THE CONCLUSION, IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE PROSECUTION ON ITSELF, in so far as the credibility of the witnesses of both sides is concerned, could not help but frankly admit in its brief (p.7), that by the testimony of the appellant it appears that the offended, Felix Manalo, took advantage of his position a head of the “Iglesia ni Cristo” succeeding in seducing her and other women, members of the church, with whom he has maintained illicit relations in the central office of the organization; that for this the offended made use of religion as a cloak to cover up his libidinous acts and immoral practices; that the feigned to be the Messiah sent by God; and that in persuading his victims, he cited Solomon and his many wives.” (Emphasis mine)
The “decision” also added that:
“The SOLICITOR GENERAL adds that, although the proofs presented by the appellant concerning the said libidinous acts, the Fiscal admits, however, that there is reason to believe that the offended, Manalo, committed immoral acts with some women, members of his church (p.8, supra). And said Solicitor concludes that he is found in the evidence that has taken advantage of his position in the Church to attack and degrade the virtue of some of his women-followers.” (Emphasis mine)
From the justices, to the prosecutor and up to the Solicitor General, they all believe “…that the offended, Manalo, committed immoral acts with some women, members of his church.” Take note that Rosita Trillanes and company were the accused, thus, the prosecutors and the Solicitor General supposed to prosecute her and not Brother Felix Y. Manalo (the complainant). However, in this case, it seems that the complainant was the one being persecuted and the accused was the “witness.” WHAT A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING! REMEMBER THAT THIS HAPPENED DURING THE JAPANESE OCCUPATION PERIOD AND THAT THE SAID COURT WAS A JAPANESE SPONSORED COURT.
Thus, regarding this 1942 decision of the Court of Appeals let us always bear in mind that:
(1) Thhis decision was made by a Japanese sponsored court, taking their authority from the Imperial Japanese forces;
(2) This decision was made by a court under the direct and full supervision and direction of the commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese forces in the Philippines;
(3) That Brother Felix Y. Manalo had conflicts with the Imperial Japanese forces that resulted to Japanese harassment of Brother Felix Y. Manalo, arrested him many times, commanded him to step down as Executive Minister of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, and made attempt to destroy his integrity and credibility;
(4) That during the Japanese occupation period, those that will not follow the will of the Imperial Japanese forces will be executed like what the Japanese did to Jose Abad Santos, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who was executed by the Japanese for not following their will.
THE REAL STORY BEHIND THE DECISION OF THE JAPANESE SPONSORED COURT OF APPEALS:
On January of 1942, the Japanese declared that all judicial courts in the Philippines were under the jurisdiction of the commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese Forces; on the early month of 1942, Brother Felix Y. Manalo had conflicts with the Japanese and arrested him several times; on April 21 of 1942, Rosita Trillanes and company made an appeal to the Court of Appeals about their libel case (they were convicted by the lower court on January of 1941); on May of 1942, the Chief Justice of the Supre Court of the Philippines, Jose Anad santos, was executed by the Imperial Japanese forces; and on July of 1942, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court regarding Rosita’s libel case and went further in calling Brother Felix Y. Manalo as a “man of low morals” (the Court of Appeals decision was published by the Philippine Gazette, the national newspaper of the Philippine government that during that time under the full control of the Imperial Japanese forces).
No comments:
Post a Comment