The Court of Appeals has dismissed the perjury case against Dominican exorcist Winston Cabading related to the Marian apparitions in Lipa. In a 37-page decision promulgated on January 26, the court granted Cabading's petition for certiorari, quashing the perjury information and issuing a permanent injunction against Quezon City Regional Trial Court orders. The case arose from his 2022 statements on the non-supernatural origin of the Lipa events.
On January 26, the Court of Appeals issued a 37-page decision dismissing the perjury case against Dominican exorcist Winston Cabading. This stemmed from his May 2022 Facebook livestream, where he reiterated the Catholic Church's official stance that the 1948 Marian apparitions in Lipa were "not of supernatural origin."
Former Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Harriet Demetriou, a devotee of “Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Grace,” filed a complaint against Cabading for offending religious feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. Although the original charge was quashed, it led to perjury allegations over Cabading's claim of a 1951 Papal Decree approved by Pope Pius XII, which Demetriou called “non-existent” due to the lack of an attached copy in his initial counter-affidavit.
However, records indicate that Cabading submitted a certified true copy of the 1951 Decree to the prosecutor's office and the court on April 15, 2024, obtained from the Vatican via the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. The CA stated, "This fact alone negates the allegation that the 1951 Decree is 'non-existent.'" The court criticized Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 96 for “merely brushed aside” this evidence, violating Cabading's due process rights.
The CA stressed that its ruling was a purely legal assessment of perjury elements, not a religious judgment. Since the 1951 Decree exists, no perjury occurred. "There is no reason to have petitioner endure the rigors of a trial under the insufficient subject information for perjury," the court concluded, ordering dismissal to spare him the "anxiety of undergoing a useless trial."
The case highlights tensions between religious beliefs and legal proceedings in the Philippines, though the court remained neutral on doctrinal matters.
