Start Dating daan vs inc

Dating daan vs inc

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.

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.

Philippians [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.

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.

are libelous per se, uncalled for and misleading information to the public.

I have some circumstantial evidences to apparently back it up.

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!