1

Rosita Trillanes binawi ang akusasyon? By Cenon Bibe, Jr.

rtpage1
Affidavit of Rosita Trillanes
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.

Source: splendorofthechurch.com.ph