Did Felix Manalo "RAPE" Rosita Trillanes or not?

Raped is a serious offense and a serious accusations. That is why when accusing someone of being a "rapist" one has to have evidences and proofs which can be considered beyond any doubt. and should prove the allegations. Yes, the FOUNDER and Iglesia ni Cristo's 'LAST MESSENGER' whom they considered "an ANGEL" FELIX Y. MANALO was accused by Ms. Rosita Trillanes, a member of his cult of raping her.

Is it true? Was there any rape happened? Did the court believed Ms. Trillanes' statements? Was Trillanes' retractions nullify her earlier statements? FIND OUT in this article.

In my desire to be balance in my views, I will post here two opposing sides. Of course, on the side of the INC, they would use all their might in defense of Felix Manalo's innocence. Proof of evidences leading to Felix Manalo's conviction as the founder, and INC's "Last Messenger-Angel" would be destructively damaging to the already damaged image of the INC exposed by it's rival cult Ang Dating Daan founded by former members of the Iglesia ni Cristo.

On the other side are the opinion of those who know much about the legality of the accusations and the underlying truth in Rosita Trillanes' statements and why she retracted later on.  And what could be the REAL REASON for Ms. Trillanes in retracting from her earlier statements. And what could be Manalo's underlying REASONS why he REWARDED Ms. Trillanes of a POSITION in the Iglesia ni Cristo after she retracted?  Of course we cannot just set aside the possibility of intimidation and threat against Ms.Trillanes. perhaps due to the fast-growing popularity and influence of Felix Manalo during those times.

I would like to PRESENT two accounts. One an Iglesia member defending the innocense of its founder and the other is a Catholic Defender who believes a RAPE took place.

But before that let me post some newsclips from old nedwspapers alledgedly accusing FELIX MANALO of RAPING Ms. ROSITA TRILLANES.

Ang sulat ng nagngangalang Rosita Trillanes na napalathala sa Official Gazette, Vol. 1, July 1942, na hinango naman namin na munting aklat na sinulat ni Lino Javier at pinamagatang “Anghel ba o Haring Solomon si Felix Manalo?” page 4-6 Ganito ang nilalaman ng liham ng iyon: Mga Kapatid: Dahil sa pag-ibig ko sa Iglesia at ukol sa inyong kabutihan ay sumulat ako sa inyo upang magtapat ng bagay na talagang nangyari sa akin at ng mga bagay na aking nasaksihan at nalaman sa panahon ng dalawang taong pagkatigil ko sa Central. Ako ay isang dalaga na naging kaanib ng Iglesia ni Cristo sa Batangas. Ako ay kinapootan at itinakwil ng aking mga magulang. Sa paniwala kong ako’y makakatagpo ng pag-aampon ay pumayag ako kay kapatid na Jacinto Torres na dalhin niya ako sa opisina Central. Noong ako ay naroon ay naransan ko ang lubhang napakapait at napakasakit sa buhay ng dalaga gaya noong lapastanganin ako ni Manalo na itinuturing kong isang ama. Noong una ay niligawan niya ako ngunit nang tumanggi ako sa kanyang mga ninanais ay binugbog at hinataw niya ako ng aking ikinawala ng malay-tao. At noong ako’y wala nang malay-tao ay ginawa niya ang kahalayang ibig niya sa akin. Doon ay lubhang naghirap ako dahil sa masamang palakad sa akin, paghataw at pagbabanta na tinatanggap ko kailan ma’t tumututol ako sa mahahalay niyang nais sa akin. Marami din akong nasaksihang mga ginahasa ni Felix Manalo, ang iba ay mga dalaga; ang iba ay mga asawa ng mga kaanib; samantalang ang isa ay asawa ng isang Ministro. Sinabi ni Manalo sa akin ang tungkol sa mga ibang kanyang ginawan ng kahalayan, noong ako’y kanyang hinihikayat na pumayag sa kanyang mga ninanais. Sinabi niya sa akin ang tungkol sa tatlumpung mga babaing kanyang kanyang pinagsamantalahan. Hindi ko maaaring ihayag ang kanilang mga pangalan upang pagtakpan ang kanilang karangalan, ngunit madalas silang nagpupunta sa Opisina. Sa piling ko ay pinagsikapan niyang ginahasa ang isang dalaga na pagkatapos ay nagbuntis at iyon ay nangyaring napapunta din sa opisina central ukol sa tanging pagkakataong may kaugnayan sa Manalo. Marahil ang dahilan kung kaya si Liloy ay nagbitiw, ay sapagkat sinikap ni Manalong pilitin si Amanda. Ang lahat ng mga itong kanyang nilapastangan ay nangatatakot magsabi sapagkat sila’y binalaang papatayin kung sila’y magsasabi, katulad ng ginawa niya kay Basilia Santos ng Paco, na itinuturo niya si Manalo, bilang ama ng kanyang dalawang anak. Naging balitang-balita ito sa Paco. Bago nagpunta si Manalo sa America, ay dinala niya ako sa bahay ng mga Protacio, sa Pasay. Ngunit noong wala pang isang buwan ay dumating siya upang kunin niya akong pabalik, nangangambang baka sinabi ko sa mga Protacio ang lahat ng kanyang inasal at ginawa sa akin; noong ako’y tumangging sumama sa kanya ay binalaan niya ako ng masama at tinakot niya ako ng isang rebolber at sa pamamagitan ng lakas ay pinilit niya akong sumama sa kanya. Pagkatapos nito ay pinalayas niya sa Iglesya ang mga mag-anak ng Protacio at pinaratangan ng kabulaanan. Kanyang ginugugol ang lahat niyang buwanang sahod na P 1,300.00 ukol sa mga babae at sa mga mahahalay na mga gawain, samantalang ang abang manggagawa ng Iglesya ay tumatanggap lamang ng P5.00, P 10.00, P 15.00, P 20.00 isang buwan. Ang nangyayari sa lahat ninyong mga abuloy na iniaalay sa Dios, ay nagpupunta sa kanya at bagay na kanyang ginugugol ukol sa lahat niyang mahahalay na gawa. Sinabi ko kay kapatid na Doro ang lahat ng bagay na ito noong si Manalo ay naroon pa sa America.Sa ganitong paraan ay pababayaan ba ninyong pagmalabisan ni Manalo ang mga kaanib at tanggapin ang Iglesya sa ngalan ng Dios…? Hindi ba ninyo iniibig ang Iglesya…? Ang inyong asawa at mga anak na babae ay nasa panganib sa kasawian sa mahahalay na pita ng taong iyan na ipinalalagay at kinikilala ninyong bilang tagapagturo ng mga salita ng Dios. Ipinagtatapat ko sa inyo ang lahat ng bagay na ito, ipinauubaya ko sa inyo ang kapasiyahan na magagawa ninyo kung tunay na iniibig ninyo ang Iglesya at ang Dios. Sa paghimok sa babaeng iniibig niya maging siya ay isang dalaga o isang may asawa, ay binabanggit niya ang maraming asawa ni Solomon at inaangkin niyang ang taong sinugo ng Dios, ay dapat gawing maligaya at ang pagpayag na pagsang-ayon sa kanyang mga ninanais ay isang kapuri-puring gawa sa mga mata ng Dios. Matatanggap ba ng inyong mabuting diwa ang walang kaayusang ito…? Nasa inyo ang kapasiyahan. Ang inyong kapatid na naging sawingpalad dahil sa malabis ng pagtitiwala. ROSITA 1. Citing the case of People versus Trillanes, published in the Official Gazette, Volume I, No. 1, July 1954, p. 394, docketed as Case No. 8180, April 21, 1942. The Court of Appeals where Trillanes was acquitted. The appellate court upheld Trillanes and categorically called Manalo “a man of low morals” (“un hombre de baja moral’). 2. Further more: “…Manalo, took advantage of his position as head of the Iglesia ni Cristo, and …employed religion as a cloak to cover his…immoral practices; that he pretended to be the Messias sent by God; and that to persuade his victims, he cited the example of Solomon and his many wives” [Sources: examineiglesianicristo.com & thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot]

Philippine Mission Churches of Christ Leslie Wolfe Carrie A. Wolfe P.O. Box 8774 Manila, P.I. Oct. 14, 1933 Mr. Salvador Laspinas, 1535 Felix Huertas, Int. C., Manila Dear Bro. Laspinas: I have your letter of Oct. 7th. You know I am sick. I am not able to give you all the information about Felix Manalo that you desire. He was a student in our mission and I was one of his teachers. We had him employed as an evangelist, paying him a salary. He was minister for the church at Singalong for some time. His wife accused him of cruelty and of adultery. She came to my house and showed the wounds which Felix had made by blows on her back. I called the doctor who is now in Manila to examine her wounds. The church at Singalong had an investigation of Felix. The wife of Felix came andmade complaints, but Felix did not come. The church at Singalong voted that Felix was guilty of the charges of his wife. As a consequence we took away the salary that we were giving to Felix. Then Felix left us. I do not have further personal knowledge of the life of Felix. There was, however, a Teresa who studied with us. It was proven in court that Felix was the father of her child. Bro. Baronia has much typewritten information about Felix Manalo and especially about the Teresa case, which he says he will be glad to furnish to any one desiring the information. I hope you will be able to continue your work and that you will be very successful. I am Cordially yours, Leslie Wolfe

“Felix Manalo Angel Or Sex Maniac? “By JOE CRUZ (FIRST OF A SERIES) “(This article is not written in defense of a group of persons or organizations; neither is it designed to accuse publicly or personally a certain individual nor purposely designed for those to whom there is a great gulf fixed between the law-abiding citizens and the wrongdoers.–EDITORS) “MANALO, FELIX ISAGUN “Superior Minister of the “Iglesia Ni cristo,” or Church of Christ. Born in Barrio Calsada, Tagig, Rizal, on May 10, 1886, he is the first of the two sons of Mariano Isagun and Bonifacia Manalo. At the age of seven, he entered a barrio school then conducted by a certain Maestrong Cario, wherein he obtained his primary education. “When the revolution came in 1896, he was unable to continue his studies, so he lived with his parents to help them sometimes by fishing but most of the time by plowing their own field. When he grew older he studied photography and later a hatter’s trade and established a hat store. But this kind of living did not satisfy him for he aspired to lead a religious life. “To realize his aspiration he joined the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1904, and attended the classes given by that institution, but not being satisfied with the teachings of that church, he transferred to the Ellinwood Presbyterian school. He was likewise so dissatisfied with the teachings of the Presbyterian Church that he decided and joined the Christian Mission, where later he was made an evangelist. As he was also dissatisfied with the teachings and doctrines of this church, he resigned his position and joined the Seventh day Adventist, popularly known as “Sabathist.” He continued his studies in the Scriptures, while in his spare time he canvassed books and wrote for the publications of the Philippine Publishing House, the organ of the Seventh Day Adventist. Then he was made a minister, but due to his constant and profound study of the Bible, he began to entertain many doubts in the doctrines and teachings of the Adventists, so that he finally decided to preach the Gospel as it was revealed to him. This was the beginning of the establishment in the Philippines of the “Iglesia Ni Cristo.” (ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. IX, Versonco). “But according to the same source, Felix Manalo Isagun is not the actual founder of the “Iglesia Ni Cristo” as claimed although the propagation started on or about November 1913. Thinking that it might be his success in pursuing his task by preaching the Scriptures in his own version, the said Church of Christ was registered under his name at the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, July 27, 1914. From then on, after many years of its survival as an organization the Philippines Free Press, dated April 23, 1950, made all estimation of more or less two million members. It was the most shocking news perhaps to other religious organizations ever made publicly. Since it scattered like wildfire that engulfed the four corners of the Philippines, Roxas, Avelino and Quirino were prompted to see the founder of “Iglesia Ni cristo,” and perhaps President Magsaysay too, for some political reasons. Analyzing its members whether such number is true, there are only 86, 125 members as of 1953, as far as the Bureau of Census and Statistics is concerned and not two million as claimed. “Mr. Manalo, perhaps, is not fully satisfied with his wife and six children. In the early twenties he started already victimizing several women. To mention the few which met a strange, most bitter and painful experience lives are Rosita, whom he can not deny that this woman is one of those that met her doom during that time; Teresa Teodoro, another victim of the so-called “Angel”; Basilla Santos, if he can recall is also one among those that suffered under his hypnotistic system. Wives of several ministers that can not talk for fear that they might be expelled as “Diakonesas” might be known by their husbands. Our informant disclosed that the following are more or less under his sex domination: Felicidad, Rosa, Virginia, Bining, Mrs. Santos, Toddy, Atang, Paz, Pilar and several weeping souls that perhaps twice as much as those above-mentioned are, in one way or another, seeking revenge against Felix Manalo. “To support our allegation, we want to prove to the reading public the following: “Letter of Rosita to Her Brothers “Brothers: In my belief that I will find protection I agreed that I be brought to [the] Central Office by Brother Jacinto Torres. When I was already there I experienced the most bitter and painful in [t]he life of [a] maiden like when Manalo, whom I considered as a father, abused me. At first he courted me but when I refused to accede to his desires he struck and beat me which rendered me unconscious. And when I was already unconscious, he raped me. There I suffered much because of the ill-treatment, beating and [threatening] that I received whenever I protested against his lewd designs. “I also witnessed many who have been raped by Felix Manalo: some are maidens; others are the wives of members and ministers. Manalo himself told me about the others whom he molested when he was persuading me to accede to his desires. He told me about some thirty women he abused. I could not reveal their names to protect their dignity, but they frequently come to the Office. In my presence, he raped a maiden who later became pregnant and that happened when she went to the central office in that only instance which concerns Manalo. … Could your good sense accept these anomalies…? It is up to you to decide.” [Source: Emily Jordan]

IGLESIA NI CRISTO SIDE: Now here is the DEFENSE of an INC member by the name "readme" under the title "Is Bro. Felix Manalo a "Rapist"?

The most raised issue, and most often attack by Catholic defenders, ADD members and other faiths, is about Bro. Felix Manalo. They conclude that Bro. Felix is convicted, others say guilty in the case of him and Sis. Rosita Trillanes. Well, lets find out what really is the story, si Bro. Felix a “rapist”?? I found an answer from the bearens.net forum, from a member and here, it is stated (Ill also try to translate it in English^_^): Quote from: Teddy Lejero Isa ito sa pinag-aralan kong mabuti at ayon sa aking pagsusuri, may tatlong tao na itiniwalag si Felix Manalo. Isa sa tatlong ito ay kamag-anak ni Rosita Trillanes. Na-convince nila si Rosita na gumawa ng sulat para pagbintangan si FYM na humalay sa kanya para lamang makaganti sila sa pagtiwalag sa kanila. Pumayag naman si Rosita. Kumalat ang sulat na ito sa mga tao at sa mga pahayagan. Kaya idenemanda ni FYM si Rosita ng libelo. Nanalo si FYM. Ngunit nag-apela si Rosita hindi sa kasong rape or paghahalay kundi upang baligtarin ang unang desisyon na libelo. (One of those ive studied, and the result of my examination, there are 3 inc members expelled in the church. One of them where relatives of Sis. Rosita. They convince Sis. Rosita to write a testimony and accuse Bro. Felix that he was harassed by him just for them to repay from the expulsion of them in the church. Sis. Rosita was convinced. The letter/testimony spreads from the people and from the newspapers. That’s why Bro. Felix petition her of libel. Bro. Felix won the case, but Sis. Rosita appealed not in the case of rape or harassment but to reverse the 1st decision of libel. ) Ngunit natauhan si Rosita. Gumawa siya ng affidavit na hindi totoo ang mga una niyang salaysay ukol sa panghahalay. (But Sis. Rosita regain consciousness. She make an affidavit that her 1st testimony were not true about the harassment.) Republic of the Philippines City of Manila S.S. AFFIDAVIT I, ROSTIA TRILLANES, Filipino, of legal age, married a resident of and with a postal address at 639 Piy Margal, Manila, upon being duly sworn according to law depose and say: 1. That I am the same ROSITA TRILLANES who was accused of libel by Mr. Felix Manalo before the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, in the month of September in the year 1939; 2. That I was convicted by the Court of First Instance for that crime upon my failure to prove the truth thereof, said conviction having been published by the Taliba, on January 4, 1941; 3. That I appealed from the decision of the said Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals because of my fear that upon my failure to pay the fine imposed threat that I would be imprisoned; 4. That concerning that libelous letter I wrote and for which I accused by Mr. Felix Manalo, I hereby state and so declare, that all matters therein stated and written are all false and pure fabrications without any truth whatsoever; 5. That the letter and all those matters stated therein was fabricated by Messrs Raymundo Mansilungan, Tedoro Briones and Cirilo Gonzales who induced me to sign the same upon their representation that it would be shown only to the brethren of the Church of Christ (IGLESIA NI CRISTO) to convince them to revolt against the administration of Mr. Felix Manalo, in retribution against him for expelling us from the Church; 6. That together with Messrs Raymundo Mansilungan, Tedoro Briones and Cirilo Gonzales, we were expelled from the Church for Acts and behaviors contrary to the doctrines of the Church; 7. That contrary to my expectation, my companions above mentioned not only showed the letter to the brethren in the Church, but published the same in a Pampango Newspaper, entitled “Ing Cawal”, whose editor at the time was Salvador Tumang, and as a consequence thereof, Mr Felix Manalo filed a libel suit against me and against Salvador Tumang and Cirilo Gonzales, resulting in our conviction, 8. That after my conviction I appealed the case to the Court of Appeals and by claiming that I was motivated by good intentions I was able to acquit myself (see Official Gazette Vol. 1, July 1942 – No. 8180, April 21, 1942), although, since then and up to the present time, I have been bothered continuously by remorse and a guilty conscience; 9. That I have therefore executed the foregoing affidavit to confirm the truth of all I haves stated above and for such other purposes for which the same could be availed of to right the wrong and injustice I have committed against Mr. Felix Manalo about whose integrity and character I have the highest of regard and resepect. Furthermore, I have executed the same without any consideration whatsoever, without having been induced by any one, except for the reasons I have stated, and without mental reservation whatsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit, and affixed my right hand thumb mark below that of my signature at the left margin of the first pageand at the bottom hereof, to remove any doubt about the authenticity of this instrument, this 21st day of November 1952, in the City of Manila, Philippines. (signature) Rosita Trillanes Right hand_________Thumb mark Signed in the presence of: (Signature of witness) (signature of 2nd witness) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of November, 1952, at Manila, Philippines; affiant exhibited to me her Residence Certificate No. A0385178 issued at Maila, on November 7, 1952. (signature) (Notary Seal) Frolian Tafalla Notary Public Until December 31, 1952 Doc. No. 118 Page No. 97 Book No. II Series of 1952 Si Rosita Trillanes ay bumalik at namatay na Deaconess sa loob ng Iglesia ni Cristo. (Sis. Rosita Trillanes came back in the church and died as a Deaconess.) This affidavit of Sis. Trillanes were also the SUMMARY of what really happen, that she was only convinced by other people to do it because they were EXPELLED from the church. However, still these nonmembers ask many questions regarding this, because they cannot accept the truth, that they malign and made such LIES saying Bro. Felix is a “rapist” however, when it is about the case of their priest ABUSE children and etc, they are SILENT, when it is about Mr. Soriano, who have many cases being thrown to him, not even FACE the accusations on him, his members says that all those were only ACCUSATIONS and not true. But when it is about Bro. Felix Manalo, they even adulterated pictures of him, make blogs/sites discussing that the court favored Sis. Rosita and that the court said that Bro. Felix is “a MAN OF LOW MORALS”, this is their source: 1. Citing the case of People versus Trillanes, published in the Official Gazette, Volume I, No. 1, July 1954, p. 394, docketed as Case No. 8180, April 21, 1942. The Court of Appeals where Trillanes was acquitted. The appellate court upheld Trillanes and categorically called Manalo “a man of low morals” (“un hombre de baja moral’). 2. Further more: “…Manalo, took advantage of his position as head of the Iglesia ni Cristo, and …employed religion as a cloak to cover his…immoral practices; that he pretended to be the Messias sent by God; and that to persuade his victims, he cited the example of Solomon and his many wives” Here is the retraction of Bro. Ismael to the church, in his letter he also tackled and PROVE that the issue about Bro. Felix is a “rapist” is not but a big LIE! “…One of those things I say on air was the issue concerning Rosita Trillanes. They say in their program that we (Iglesia ni Cristo) do not dare touch that issue. We've (InC) already responded to that, a while back. Not just me, but even Bro Paul Guevarra answered that. Even Maximo Bularan. Even then, when they we're forcing me to say those things, I refused. I told them 'I know that case'. She (Trillanes) was sued by Bro Felix Manalo and they were convicted, she and her accomplishes. There even came a time when she (Trillanes) retracted. Why would I repeat something that's not true?...” Let us one by one clear this issue. Many questions were raised in our minds about this issue because of the LIES of nonmembers to the Church of Christ. By the way, who are those MEMBERS that were expelled from the church? from examineiglesianicristo.com Teofilo Ora leaves Church of Christ In May 1922, former members of the Philippine-based Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ), Teofilo Ora, Januario Ponce and Basilio Santiago gather some members of the Iglesia ni Cristo formally separating from the church. Several months later, they name the Church Iglesia ng Diyos kay Kristo Hesus (English Translation: Church of God in Christ Jesus). That same year, Nicholas Perez became a member and preacher of this group at Maragondon, Cavite. wikipedia So now its clear, those are the three members expelled in the church and made their own churches. It is where the church founded by Eliseo soriano rooted, like protestantism. Many will ask, why then only ten years or whatsoever Sis. Rosita retracts? Just see the sequence of the events above, because she was bothered by her guilty conscience. And after realizing that, that is why she wanted to came back in the church! Why the church accept her and became a deaconess while she is a PERJURER? If a member is expelled in the church, he/she has the chance to came back in the church, its called "balik loob" where there are also a process if the expelled member regretted to his/her mistakes/sins which he/she cause to be expelled. That's the only time when he/she can came back in the church. Like Sis. Rosita, she also have the chance to be back on the church especially, she was forgiven by Bro. Felix Manalo. Some says, why is that the suspect(Bro. Felix) is the one who petition to the court, is it should be the victim(Sis. Rosita)? That should be the one for NONMEMBERS to think! What really happened, is that Bro. Felix is the victim here, read the affidavit of Sis. Rosita for the events. He filed libel because Sis. Rosita and other make such lie to Bro. Felix saying that they were harassed by him. Nonmembers argue,we thought that an INC member should not file a suit in a member also? In those times, Sis. Rosita and others were already EXPELLED in the church before the issue spreads. They say, Why Bro. Felix Manalo did not appeal to the court in its decision saying about his "immorality"? That's the thing that shows the humbleness of Bro. Felix, he knows that the accusation is not true and also the members know it. Many persecution come around on the church especially to Bro. Felix, this is just ONE of those! The decision dated July 1954 and the retraction was made November 7, 1952. Therefore, the decision of the court before the retraction was made is nothing but false/wrong! CONCLUSION: If the accusation is true, that Bro. Felix "raped" many, and Sis. Rosita is one of them, she will probably would not, in any way, wanted to come back in the church. If you were really raped, would you want to go back in the "suspect"? Dont say Bro. Felix or the Church of Christ INFLUENCED her and etc. because in those times, INC is not that HUGE and influential. Sis. Rosita Trillanes came back in the church and died as a DEACONESS. Therefore, it just proves, that the accusations about "immorality" on Bro. Felix Manalo were all, but a LIE! Meaning, all those written in the NEWSPAPERS like bombshell and official gazzete were published BEFORE the retraction made, meaning, NOT UPDATED IN THE TRUTH. CASE CLOSED!

CATHOLIC DEFENDER SIDE: Here's a thorough, brilliant and intelligent analysis on the RAPE CASE against FELIX MANALO by its own member ROSITA TRILLANES. Thanks to Cenon Bibe owner of TUMBUKIN NATIN.

Felix Manalo vs Rosita Trillanes: May rape ba o wala? MAY CHALLENGE po sa ATIN ang isang KAANIB ng IGLESIA na ITINAYO ni FELIX MANALO noong 1914. Sinabi po ng nagpapakilalang ANONYMOUS INC: "NAPATUNAYAN NG KA FELIX NA WALA SIYANG KASALANAN KAYA HINDI SIYA NAHATULAN KAILANMAN O NAPARUSAHAN NG HUKUMAN. KATIBAYAN, HINDI SIYA KAILANMAN NABILANGGO." MATAGAL na po nating HINIHILING sa mga KAANIB ng INC na IPAKITA RITO ang PRUWEBA at PATUNAY na "WALANG KASALANAN" ang PASTOL NILANG si FELIX MANALO, pero WALA po SILANG MAIPAKITA. Bakit po kaya? ANONYMOUS INC: "MANANATILI LANG IYANG AKUSASYON, AT HINDI MAPAPATUNAYAN NINOMAN NA TOTOO NA NANG-RAPE SIYA, HINDI NGA NAPATUNAYAN NG KORTE, NG MGA KUMALABAN SA KANIYA NOONG NABUBUHAY PA SIYA ..." HINDI po iyan SIMPLENG AKUSASYON. MAKIKITA po NINYO sa ILALIM. ANONYMOUS INC: "KUNG TALAGANG NAPAKATIBAY AT HINDI MAPAGDUDUDAHAN ANG MGA EBIDENSIYANG IYAN, ABA HINDI AKO MAG-AATUBILING ILABAS SA PUBLIKO IYAN...KAYA NGA KAYO TAKOT NA TAKOT KASI ALAM NINYO, WALANG KAKUWENTA-KUWENTA IYANG MGA EBIDENSIYA NA SINASABI NINYO...WALA KAYONG ILILITAW KASI NGA WALA NAMAN KAYONG PINANGHAHAWAKANG DOKUMENTO." "NAPATUNAYAN BA NG KORTE NA GUILTY SIYA? MAY MAIPAPAKITA KA BANG EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE COURT HAVE GIVEN THE VERDICT GUILTY OF RAPE TO KA FELIX MANALO BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? Kaya nga tingnan mo, kung totoo ang mga alegasyong iyan, at napatunayan iyan ng hukuman at nabilanggo siya." MAGANDANG TANONG po iyan: KUNG TOTOONG GINAHASA NI FELIX MANALO SI ROSITA TRILLANES AY BAKIT HINDI NAKULONG SI MANALO? SIMPLE lang po ang SAGOT: HINDI NAGDEMANDA SI TRILLANES LABAN KAY MANALO. TIYAK po na PAPALAKPAK at MAGLULUNDAG sa TUWA ang mga KAANIB ng INC matapos nilang MABASA ang mga NAUNANG SALITA. HUWAG po MUNA. Paki tuloy po ang PAGBABASA. Dahil po sa CHALLENGE nitong ANONYMOUS INC, at sa HANGARIN NATIN na MALAMAN ang KATOTOHANAN, ay NAGSIYASAT po AKO sa sinasabing KASO laban kay FELIX MANALO. Ganito po ang NAPAG-ALAMAN NATIN. Noon pong 1938 ay may isang "ROSITA TRILLANES" na gumawa ng SULAT kung saan INAKUSAHAN NIYA ang isang "FELIX MANALO" ng PANGGAGAHASA sa KANYA at sa ILAN PANG BABAENG KAANIB ng INC (1914). Dahil diyan ay IDINEMANDA ni FELIX MANALO si ROSITA TRILLANES ng LIBEL o PANINIRANG PURI. Sa COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE sa MAYNILA ay NATALO si ROSITA TRILLANES kaya UMAPELA siya sa COURT OF APPEALS na PUMANIG naman sa KANYA. Dahil sa PAGPANIG ng COURT OF APPEALS kay ROSITA TRILLANES ay IBINASURA ng KORTE noong 1942 ang KASONG ISINAMPA ni FELIX MANALO laban kay ROSITA TRILLANES. Ibig sabihin po niyan ay HINDI NAPATUNAYAN ni FELIX MANALO na PANINIRANG PURI LANG ang mga SINABI ni ROSITA TRILLANES sa KANYANG SULAT. Ngayon, KUNG IDINEKLARA mismo ng KORTE na HINDI PANINIRANG PURI ang SINABI ng isang BABAE na GINAHASA SIYA ng isang LALAKE ay ANO po YON? Maaari po bang sabihin na NANIWALA ang KORTE sa SINABI ng BABAE? KAYO na ang SUMAGOT sa tanong na yan. Ayon sa NABASA ko ay ganito ang SINABI ng COURT OF APPEALS patungkol sa AKUSASYON ni TRILLANES kay MANALO: "... the Prosecution admits that there is reason to believe that the offended party, Manalo, did commit immoral acts with some women members of the Iglesia." MAKIKITA po NINYO riyan ang SABI ng KORTE kung NAGAWA nga ni FELIX MANALO ang sinasabing GINAWA NIYA. IDINAGDAG pa po ng COURT OF APPEALS: "And the Solicitor concludes that he found out through proofs presented that Manalo is a man "de baja moral" (man of low moral) and that he took advantage of his position in the Iglesia to attack and sully the virtue of some of his female followers." Diyan po ay SINASABI naman ng KORTE kung ANO ang PANINIWALA NITO sa URI ng PAGKATAO ni FELIX MANALO. Ang mga SIPI sa itaas ay HALAW sa DESISYON ng COURT OF APPEALS na NAGBABASURA sa KASONG LIBEL na ISINAMPA ni FELIX MANALO laban kay ROSITA TRILLANES (Case No.8180, April 21, 1942) at INIULAT ng OFFICIAL GAZETTE sa Vol. I, No. 1, July 1954, p. 394. Ang DESISYON ay ISINULAT ng mga JUSTICE na sina HONTIVEROS, BRIONES and TORRES. BATAY sa DESISYON ng COURT of APPEALS na NAGBABASURA sa DEMANDA ni FELIX MANALO kay ROSITA TRILLANES ay MAKIKITA NATIN kung SINO ang PINANIWALAAN ng KORTE: Si ROSITA TRILLANES ba na NAGSABI na GINAHASA SIYA ni FELIX MANALO? O si FELIX MANALO na NAGSASABING SINISIRAAN LANG SIYA ni ROSITA TRILLANES? At BATAY po sa DESISYON ng COURT OF APPEALS, SINO po ang PANINIWALAAN NINYO? Si ROSITA TRILLANES o si FELIX MANALO? Ngayon, kung PINABORAN ng KORTE si ROSITA TRILLANES at IDINEKLARA na HINDI PANINIRANG PURI ang mga SINABI NIYA LABAN kay FELIX MANALO, bakit hindi nakulong si FELIX MANALO? Simple lang po ang SAGOT: Si ROSITA TRILLANES po kasi ang INAAKUSAHAN sa KASONG ISINAMPA ni FELIX MANALO. Si FELIX MANALO po ang COMPLAINANT. Si FELIX MANALO ang HUMIHINGI sa KORTE na PARUSAHAN si ROSITA TRILLANES dahil sa umano'y PANINIRANG PURI sa kanya. Ang papel ni ROSITA TRILLANES ay PATUNAYAN na HINDI PANINIRANG PURI ang KANYANG MGA SINABI sa KANYANG SULAT. Ika nga, DUMIDEPENSA LANG si ROSITA TRILLANES. Kaya KAHIT pa NOONG NANALO si ROSITA TRILLANES sa KASONG ISINAMPA sa KANYA ay HINDI KASAMA ang PAGPAPAKULONG kay FELIX MANALO sa BUNGA ng KANYANG PANALO. Para MAKULONG si FELIX MANALO, DAPAT ay INIREKLAMO rin ni ROSITA TRILLANES ang NAGTATAG sa INC (1914). HINDI na NAKAPAGREKLAMO si ROSITA TRILLANES. Bakit? Ayon mismo sa SULAT ni ROSITA TRILLANES, siya ay isang DALAGA na ITINAKWIL ng KANYANG MGA MAGULANG. Ibig sabihin ay WALA SIYANG PINANSIYAL na KAKAYANANG MAGSAMPA ng ANUMANG REKLAMO. Isa nga raw sa DAHILAN kung bakit siya NAPAHAMAK ay dahil "Sa paniwala kong ako’y makakatagpo ng pag-aampon ay pumayag ako kay kapatid na Jacinto Torres na dalhin niya ako sa opisina Central." So, WALANG PERA at WALANG TUTULONG kaya PAANO MAKAPAGDEDEMANDA si ROSITA TRILLANES? Iyan po ang malamang na DAHILAN kung BAKIT HINDI NAKAPAGDEMANDA si ROSITA TRILLANES. At DAHIL HINDI NAKAPAGDEMANDA ay HINDI TALAGA MANGYAYARI na MAIPAKUKULONG NIYA ang SINASABI NIYANG GUMAHASA sa KANYA. Iyan po ang SAGOT sa TANONG nitong KAANIB ng INC kung BAKIT HINDI NAKULONG ang SUGO NILA kung totoo man ang mga sinabi ni ROSITA TRILLANES laban sa kanya. Ngayon, tulad po ng LAGI NATING SINASABI: KUNG MAY MALI TAYONG NAIBIGAY na IMPORMASYON ay WELCOME po ang ANUMANG REAKSYON o PAGTUTUWID na GUSTONG GAWIN NINO MAN, LALO NA NG MGA KAANIB NG INC. Salamat po. Rosita Trillanes binawi ang akusasyon? DAHIL PATAS po TAYO ay ILALABAS po natin dito ang UMANO ay RETRACTION ni ROSITA TRILLANES sa SINABI NIYANG GINAHASA SIYA ni FELIX MANALO. Ito pong "RETRACTION" na ito ay IBINIGAY ni ANONYMOUS INC, isang KAANIB ng IGLESIANG ITINATAG ni FELIX MANALO. Republic of the Philippines City of Manila S.S. AFFIDAVIT I, ROSTIA TRILLANES, Filipino, of legal age, married a resident of and with a postal address at 639 Piy Margal, Manila, upon being duly sworn according to law depose and say: 1. That I am the same ROSITA TRILLANES who was accused of libel by Mr. Felix Manalo before the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, in the month of September in the year 1939; 2. That I was convicted by the Court of First Instance for that crime upon my failure to prove the truth thereof, said conviction having been published by the Taliba, on January 4, 1941; 3. That I appealed from the decision of the said Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals because of my fear that upon my failure to pay the fine imposed threat that I would be imprisoned; 4. That concerning that LIBELOUS LETTER I WROTE AND FOR WHICH I ACCUSED BY MR. FELIX MANALO, I HEREBY STATE AND SO DECLARE, THAT ALL MATTERS THEREIN STATED AND WRITTEN ARE ALL FALSE AND PURE FABRICATIONS WITHOUT ANY TRUTH WHATSOEVER; 5. THAT THE LETTER AND ALL THOSE MATTERS STATED THEREIN WAS FABRICATED BY MESSRS RAYMUNDO MANSILUNGAN, TEDORO BRIONES AND CIRILO GONZALES WHO INDUCED ME TO SIGN THE SAME UPON THEIR REPRESENTATION THAT IT WOULD BE SHOWN ONLY TO THE BRETHREN OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST (IGLESIA NI CRISTO) TO CONVINCE THEM TO REVOLT AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF MR. FELIX MANALO, IN RETRIBUTION AGAINST HIM FOR EXPELLING US FROM THE CHURCH; 6. THAT TOGETHER WITH MESSRS RAYMUNDO MANSILUNGAN, TEDORO BRIONES AND CIRILO GONZALES, WE WERE EXPELLED FROM THE CHURCH FOR ACTS AND BEHAVIORS CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH; 7. THAT CONTRARY TO MY EXPECTATION, MY COMPANIONS ABOVE MENTIONED NOT ONLY SHOWED THE LETTER TO THE BRETHREN IN THE CHURCH, BUT PUBLISHED THE SAME IN A PAMPANGO NEWSPAPER, ENTITLED “ING CAWAL”, WHOSE EDITOR AT THE TIME WAS SALVADOR TUMANG, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, MR FELIX MANALO FILED A LIBEL SUIT AGAINST ME AND AGAINST SALVADOR TUMANG AND CIRILO GONZALES, RESULTING IN OUR CONVICTION, 8. That after my conviction I appealed the case to the Court of Appeals and by claiming that I was motivated by good intentions I was ableto acquit myself (see Official Gazette Vol. 1, July 1942 – No. 8180, April 21, 1942), ALTHOUGH, SINCE THEN AND UP TO THE PRESENT TIME, I HAVE BEEN BOTHERED CONTINUOUSLY BY REMORSE AND A GUILTY CONSCIENCE; 9. THAT I HAVE THEREFORE EXECUTED THE FOREGOING AFFIDAVIT TO CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF ALL I HAVES STATED ABOVE AND FOR SUCH OTHER PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE SAME COULD BE AVAILED OF TO RIGHT THE WRONG AND INJUSTICE I HAVE COMMITTED AGAINST MR. FELIX MANALO ABOUT WHOSE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER I HAVE THE HIGHEST OF REGARD AND RESEPECT. Furthermore, I HAVE EXECUTED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT HAVING BEEN INDUCED BY ANY ONE, EXCEPT FOR THE REASONS I HAVE STATED, AND WITHOUT MENTAL RESERVATION WHATSOEVER. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit, and affixed my right hand thumb mark below that of my signature at the left margin of the first pageand at the bottom hereof, to remove any doubt about the authenticity of this instrument, this 21st day of November 1952, in the City of Manila, Philippines. (signature) Rosita Trillanes Right hand_________Thumb mark Signed in the presence of: (Signature of witness) (signature of 2nd witness) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of November, 1952, at Manila, Philippines; affiant exhibited to me her Residence Certificate No. A0385178 issued at Maila, on November 7, 1952. (signature) (Notary Seal) Frolian Tafalla Notary Public Until December 31, 1952 Doc. No. 118 Page No. 97 Book No. II Series of 1952 Ngayon, para po BALANSE ay HETO naman po ang KOMENTO ng isang KATOLIKO sa RETRACTION umano na iyan. HALAW po ito sa GAWA ni ESTEBAN RAYMUNDO sa isang OPEN LETTER TO AN IGLESIA NI CRISTO MEMBER. Sabi po ni RAYMUNDO kaugnay sa RETRACTION umano ni ROSITA TRILLANES. (Ang mga EMPHASIS o PAGDIDIIN ay AKIN) When I raised the issue on Rosita Trillanes, someone in this group responded to me by posting the purported “retraction” of Trillanes. I pointed out that said RETRACTION DOES NOT SERVE ANY FATHOMABLE LEGAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. A recantation, retraction or desistance should be executed and filed before the prosecution files a criminal information in court. In the Trillanes case, however, that cannot be legally possible, for the following reasons: 1.Manalo was the private complainant. He should have been the one who executed and filed an affidavit of desistance or retraction. 2.The case was already filed in court. In fact, the case reached the Court of appeals where Trillanes was acquitted. The appellate court upheld Trillanes and categorically called Manalo “a man of low morals” (“un hombre de baja moral’). 3.The retraction was executed by Trillanes many years after the dismissal of the case. The person who furnished me the alleged text of the retraction berated me and told me to leave Trillanes alone because “matagal nang namayapa si Kapatid na Trillanes” and “masigasig siyang naglingkod sa Iglesia bilang diaconesa hanggang sa kanyang kamatayan.” The point that Trillanes remained a deaconess until her death, after the scandal that she caused, struck me. Why would a self-confessed liar be allowed to serve in the church as deaconess? In 1 Timothy 3:10, Apostle Paul provides the qualifications for the office of deacon: “And let these also be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderer, sober, faithful in all things.” You consider a self-confessed liar blameless? Manalo himself considered Trillanes a libeler, in fact he filed a criminal case against her for libel. Then, why would she be appointed as deaconess even if she does not qualify as one who is “not a slanderer.”? You consider a conspirator against the church like Trillanes as “faithful in all things”? The doubt continues to linger in the air that her retraction can be construed as a quid pro quo for her position as deaconess. This is not to mention the undue influence and tremendous power Manalo formidably wielded during that time, both as the Sugo, Founder and Executive Minister of his church. Sa halip po na MAKALINAW ay LALONG NAGPALABO ang UMANO'Y PAGBAWI ni ROSITA TRILLANES sa MGA SINABI NIYA LABAN kay FELIX MANALO. Halimbawa po, GANOON po ba talaga sa INC (1914)? Ang NAG-AKUSA sa PUNO NILA ng PANGGAGAHASA ay IPINO-PROMOTE pa? Kung ginawang LEGAL ang RETRACTION ni ROSITA TRILLANES, MALINAW na BINABAWI NIYA ang mga SINUMPAAN NIYANG SALAYSAY sa HUKUMAN. Hindi po ba PAG-AMIN iyan ng PERJURY? Lalabas na HINDI LANG po UMAMIN si ROSITA TRILLANES na siya ay MAPANIRANG PURI, UMAAMIN din po SIYA na SIYA ay PERJURER o NAGSINUNGALING. NANGYAYARI po ba talaga na ang isang NANINIRANG PURI at isang UMAAMING NAGSINUNGALING ay GINAGAWANG DIAKONO o DIAKONESA sa IGLESIANG ITINATAG ni FELIX MANALO? ANONG URI po ng PAMUNUAN ang MAGKAKAROON sa INC (1914) kung ang magiging BATAYAN sa PAGBIBIGAY nila ng POSISYON sa mga KAANIB ay ang PAGGAWA ng KASAMAAN? Kaya po ba MARAMI sa mga KAANIB ng INC na NARITO sa BLOG na ITO ay NAGSISINUNGALING, NANINIRA at NAGMUMURA? Iyan po ba ang TIKET NILA para UMANGAT sa KANILANG SAMAHAN? Hindi po magiging KATAKA-TAKA kung ang KASO ni ROSITA TRILLANES ang KANILANG PAGBABATAYAN. So, SORRY po kung talagang KADUDA-DUDA ang sinasabing RETRACTION at PAGBABALIK-LOOB nitong si ROSITA TRILLANES. KUNG HINDI KAYA SIYA BINIGYAN ng POSISYON bilang DIAKONESA ay GAGAWIN KAYA NIYA yung RETRACTION? Lumalabas pa kasi na SINUHULAN LANG SIYA para "LINISIN" ang PANGALAN ni FELIX MANALO, hindi po ba? MAIKUKUMPARA po natin ang RETRACTION at PAGBABALIK-LOOB na GINAWA ni JOSE RIZAL sa IGLESIA KATOLIKA. Noong NAG-RETRACT si RIZAL ay WALA SIYANG NAKUHANG PABOR MULA sa SIMBAHAN. KATUNAYAN, ni HINDI nga po NAPIGILAN ng RETRACTION ni RIZAL ang PAGBARIL sa KANYA sa LUNETA. Iyan po ang ISANG TUNAY na HALIMBAWA ng NAGBABALIK-LOOB at GUMAGAWA ng RETRACTION--KUSANG LOOB at WALANG KAPALIT na SUHOL. Pero KUNG ang PAGABALIK-LOOB at RETRACTION ay MAY MALAKING KAPALIT, masasabi po bang TUNAY IYON? HINDI po ba LALABAS na NABILI LANG ang RETRACTION? Ngayon, HINDI po NATIN SINISISI si ROSITA TRILLANES. Sa halip ay KINAAAWAAN po NATIN SIYA. AYON mismo sa SALAYSAY NIYA sa KANYANG SULAT na IBINIGAY sa KORTE, SIYA po ay ISANG DALAGA na ITINAKWIL ng KANYANG MGA MAGULANG. Sa KANYANG KAHIRAPAN at KAWALAN ng MAPUPUNTAHAN ay SINUBUKAN NIYANG MAGPA-AMPON sa CENTRAL ng INC (1914). HINDI po MAHIRAP ISIPIN na ang ISANG MAHIRAP at WALANG MAPUNTAHANG BABAE ay TUMANGGAP ng "POSISYON" sa isang samahan para MAIBSAN ang KANYANG PAGHIHIRAP at PAGDURUSA. Kaya po kung totoo na SINUHULAN si ROSITA TRILLANES para AMININ NIYA na NAGSINUNGALING SIYA ay lumalabas na PANIBAGONG DAGOK at PANG-AAPI na naman po iyon sa KANYA.

Now, I won't say much about these two opposing opinions. However I will leave to you the judgment: Did Iglesia ni Cristo FOUNDER FELIX MANALO raped ROSITA TRILLANES? or NOT? Then you still have the ample time to save your souls from damnation.