By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
Further to the decision of the Department of Justice junking several cases filed by the Yanson 2 against the Yanson 4, I did not know that the children were included in the suits. Thus, also dismissed were the cases against Jerica Leanne and Jerina Louise Ramos, daughters of Emily Yanson who were included in the complaint.
Why were the children included since they were not in the scene of the turmoil in August last year nor did we read anything that they had a hand in the “battle of Mansilingan”? It seems they were included to spite or to inflict fear in them.
Why Emily’s children were singled out is beyond understanding except when the accusers wanted to strike against an entire family, including the innocents. The charge seems to show vengeance rather than the truth, like the wars in ancient times when babies were butchered to prevent them from growing up and taking revenge, the throne, or fortune. Imagine the trauma on these kids and the blot on their public record.
Lawyers of the Y4 also asked how their clients were indicted for Qualified Theft of property owned by VTI when they were incumbent operating officers and comprise its Board of Directors. The validity of this finding will also be questioned before the courts and the DOJ, they said.
If I remember right the Yanson 2 claimed that the Yanson 4 took documents and cash from VTI when they left the main office. The news at the time said that the Yanson 4 forced the opening of the cabinets containing these documents. The DOJ believed there is a case for qualified theft, but as the Yanson 4 lawyers said they will challenge that DOJ finding.
The basis of the DOJ indictment is that the Yanson 4 and VTI are different personalities and thus the Yanson 4 took things that do not belong to them. The DOJ did not attempt to say the Yanson 4 are the owners. The DOJ conclusion has implications for everybody.
Granting that the Yanson 4 were mere managers or employees, and there was a warrantless, forcible entry or a fire, is it theft if the managers took away the vital documents from being taken or burned and ensure that these documents were safe? Would they not be remiss in their duty to safeguard these documents from intruders, as the DOJ classified those who entered the compound illegally?
More so if the intruders were violent which showed an intent to destroy as they did destroy VTI properties in that illegal entry. Common sense tells us that the custodian of important documents or properties has the duty to protect them from persons whose motivations are unknown, like thieves.
The fact that those who forcibly entered the VTI compound had not presented any authority to enter or to search and seize any property except the gun and the uniform and passing through a wall that they demolished, the greater is the duty of Yanson 4 to protect those vital documents.
The dismissal of the different criminal complaints against the Y4 comes after the earlier junking of another set of criminal cases against them for arbitrary detention, grave threats, grave coercion, among others, the press release said.
The cases were filed by the Y2 and their supporters after they wrested possession of VTI’s premises from the Y4 without a court order in August 2019. The Yanson 4 were then sitting as its operating officers because they were the majority owners of the company and therefore had the right over the management of VTI.
The Yanson 2 claimed they were the majority and apparently using their clout in the PNP hierarchy that without a warrant, forcibly ejected the Yanson 4. The Yanson 4 left the premises peacefully to avoid more violence.
Narvasa said that the intra-corporate actions and countersuit filed by the siblings against each other are pending before the Bacolod RTC and Court of Appeals in Cebu.
The findings of the DOJ, on the other hand, did not resolve the issue of ownership which means that the fighting within the family will remain. It will take a long time for the family to finally see an end to their feud. In fact, a new battlefront has arisen.
Two related matters were shown to me that I will discuss on Monday.
