INC wins libel case vs ‘Dating Daan’ evangelist

MANILA, Philippines - 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.

In a 19-page decision, Regional Trial Court Branch 92 Judge Eleuterio Bathan said elements of libel were present in the April 23 and 27, 2003 broadcasts of Soriano’s “Ang Dating Daan,” in which he uttered statements against INC such as “Iglesiang pumapatay ng kapwa tao, manloloko, terrorist, magnanakaw, and mamamatay tao.”

“There is no question that the broadcasts were made public and imputed to Iglesia Ni Cristo defects or circumstances tending to cause it dishonor, discredit and contempt,” read the decision promulgated on Monday.

“Soriano’s remarks… are libelous per se, uncalled for and misleading information to the public. Taken as a whole, the broadcasts suggest Iglesia Ni Cristo is a killer, swindler, a spy, and a terrorist and a thief which is contrary to the doctrines and teachings of every religious sect,” added Bathan.

Soriano failed to attend the promulgation of the decision. 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.

The judge also noted that retaliation is different from self-defense.

“He should have filed the necessary or corresponding criminal and/or civil case against (INC) in order to protect his (Soriano) interest. He did not, but instead, made retaliation against INC,” read his decision.

“In doing so, the accused disregarded the true function of courts of justice and took the law into his hands,” he added.