By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
It is said that pictures don’t lie but with the new technology photographs can be altered. However manipulated photographs can also be detected and in this case there is no showing that the Yanson children submitted a faked photo. These photos make Olivia’s claim of a tarpaulin notice an afterthought and thus a lie.
Likewise it is said that a picture tells a thousand words. Here the photographs presented by Roy and his siblings tell the tale of how the lie was concocted and unmasked as well.
I find it funny that the lawyers who prepared this complaint did not submit a sworn statement of Lamada who is the principal witness of this supposed illegal entry or trespass. Rightly the prosecutor in Dumaguete noted the discrepancy.
The decision to junk Olivia’s complaint said, “The statement made by the Complainant were apparently based on the account of Lamada, the branch manager, who personally saw the incident on July 26, 2019 at around 2:30 a.m.
“Evidently the Complainant was not present at the estate premises on the complained date and time of the incident. Furthermore, there is nothing on record that would put the statement of Complainant within the purview of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.”
There is one thing real in a concocted tale – the lie quite often emerges because the liar cannot link all the dots or facts together. So here we have Olivia complaining about her three children “trespassing” on family property based on a story of someone who woke up at 2:30 in the morning and claim that the three with 76 guards gained entry into the VTI compound. He probably was walking in his sleep or was made to lie to provide a basis for the tale that, unhappily for her, Olivia swore to be the truth.
The slip was apparent – she was not there but failed to submit a sworn statement of a man (Lamada) on whose words she relied upon for her complaint. Unhappily for her the lawyers she paid to prepare her tale bungled in inventing the lie.
More funny (or negligent, maybe to use a mild term), the prosecutor noted that while the affidavit of Olivia cited the facts of the non-existent sworn statement of Lamada, her complaint submitted the affidavit of an alleged witness, Willard H. Salvilla which “refers to July 27 and not July 26 the subject of instant complaint.”
As William Shakespeare noted “what tangled web we weave when we start to deceive.” Indeed, in this case, Olivia’s complaint created their tangled web and got caught in it.
It is also said that lies cannot stand the light of day. Ironically, Olivia opened the doors and windows that exposed the lies cooked in darkness and consequently exposed her own devices. Thanks but no thanks to her lawyers.
Here is another mistake. According to the prosecutor, while Olivia claims to be the co-owner of the property in Dumaguete with her deceased husband Ricardo, she also refers to the Respondents as her children and “as a matter of legal consequences, the passing of Ricardo Sr. vested upon Respondents hereditary and co-ownership rights over the said estate unless said estate has been the subject of a testamentary disposition of the decedent solely in favour of Complainant or with others to the exclusion of herein Respondents.”
In find this particular statement very interesting because all the cases so far that Olivia had filed against her children hinge on her claim as the sole owner of the Yanson family properties. I had digressed this point in previous columns, like Olivia’s claim that she owned the apartments in Sta. Clara Executive Subdivision in Bacolod and forced the occupants of the apartment to leave. Olivia disregarded the fact that she is a co-owner, not the sole owner of the properties and that Emily, her daughter had been in actual possession of the apartments for over 20 years. The number of years of Olivia’s silence and inaction to exercise her alleged right cannot be simply ignored.
The case she filed and the criminal case that the Causings filed against her unfortunately remains unacted upon by the prosecutors in Bacolod. I wonder why it’s taking so long.
We continue tomorrow.
