CA dismisses perjury case vs Dominican exorcist Winston Cabading

February 1, 2026 | 12:07pm

MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed the perjury case against Dominican exorcist Winston Cabading over the Marian apparitions in Lipa.

In a 37-page decision promulgated on January 26, the appellate court granted Cabading’s petition for certiorari, effectively quashing the information for perjury and issuing a permanent injunction against the implementation of previous orders of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 96 that found him guilty of perjury.

The case stemmed from a May 2022 Facebook livestream in which Cabading discussed the 1948 Lipa Apparition. 

During the broadcast, Cabading reiterated the Catholic Church’s official position that the events in Lipa were "not of supernatural origin."

These statements prompted former Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Harriet Demetriou, a devotee of “Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Grace,” to file a complaint for offending religious feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.

While the initial charge was eventually quashed by the trial court, it gave rise to subsequent allegations of perjury.

The perjury charge was based on Cabading’s legal filings in which he asserted the existence of a 1951 Papal Decree approved by Pope Pius XII.

Demetriou argued that Cabading made a “willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood,” claiming the 1951 Decree was “non-existent” because he failed to attach a copy of it to his initial counter-affidavit.

However, the CA found this argument fundamentally flawed. Records show that Cabading later submitted a certified true copy of the 1951 Decree to both the prosecutor’s office and the trial court on April 15, 2024, after receiving it from the Vatican through the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.

"This fact alone negates the allegation that the 1951 Decree is 'non-existent,'" the CA ruling stated. 

The court further noted that the RTC “merely brushed aside” this evidence, constituting a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right to due process.

The CA emphasized that while the case involved religious matters, its resolution was strictly a legal determination of whether the elements of perjury were present.

The court held that because the 1951 Decree did, in fact, exist, Cabading could not be held liable for asserting its existence under oath.

"There is no reason to have petitioner endure the rigors of a trial under the insufficient subject information for perjury," the court concluded, ordering the dismissal of the case to save the petitioner from the "anxiety of undergoing a useless trial,” the CA said.

Recommended