By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
The Department of Justice dismissed last July 4 several cases filed against the four children of Ricardo B. Yanson: Roy, Emily, Ma. Lourdes Celina Lopez and Ricardo Jr., called by media for short as Yanson 4. These cases were initiated by their two siblings, Leo Rey and Ginnette Dumancas or Yanson 2. Since they are allied with their mother Olivia who is an active member against the four, they are tagged as Yanson 3. The family feud was the center of news last year resulting in these cases.
Atty. Carlo Joaquin Narvasa, counsel of the Yanson 4, revealed the DOJ decision to media last Sunday, just on time as the breaking news for the Monday issue.
According to Narvasa, the Yanson 2 had filed the cases to “legitimize their control over Vallacar Transit, Inc.” It is public knowledge that the Yanson 2 do not have the controlling share of the corporation because the Yanson 4 own 61.16 percent of the stocks of the corporation. These are cases of force versus legitimacy.
In a forcible ejection of the Yanson 4 in August last year, the police violently expelled the Yanson 4 out of the corporation’s property and installed Leo Rey as the president of the corporation although he and his sister owned a minority share of VTI. They were able to take over VTI compound from the Yanson 4 by using the police force of Bacolod and Region 6 ostensibly on orders from higher police headquarters.
The police had no warrant to enter the VTI premises but despite this, the Yanson 2 filed the case against the Yanson 4 who were legitimate majority owners of the company. After they had ejected Roy, the sitting president, the Yanson 2 installed Leo Rey and to “legitimize” their forcible entry, the Yanson 2 filed the case against Yanson 4. The DOJ dismissed the case because the police did not have permission from the court.
The ruling of the DOJ dismissing the case of forcible entry has an interesting point in light of the approval of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The police claimed they found Molotov cocktails inside the compound after they expelled Roy Yanson. If this happened when the Anti-Terrorism Act was in place, the warrantless entry of the police into the VTI compound and arrest of the Yanson 4 as suspected terrorists would have been legal.
As to the carnapping case for 55 buses filed against the Y4, the DOJ struck down for “dearth of evidence” and the lack of unlawful taking of the vehicles as the buses were voluntarily parked by their drivers in the premises of Dynamic Builders, owned by one of the Y4.
The DOJ further explained that the “drivers simply parked their bus units inside the premises of Dynamic Builders on the premise that it would be safe in said place” following the chaotic takeover by the faction of Leo Rey of VTI premises without any court order.
Citing the “transfer of the buses to the Dynamic Builders compound” the Yanson 4 lawyer said, “This was an incident at the height of the violent siege in August 2019 by Y2 and the police in the Mansilingan head office of the bus company which was done without any court order, and despite the pendency of Leo Rey’s suit questioning his ouster as VTI’s former president.”
The dismissed charges included those filed against the spouse and children of Ricardo Jr. – Margarethe Rose, Riana Micole, and Christopher Olric Yanson, who are the directors of Dynamic Builders.
The charges of grave coercion against Roy, Emily Yanson, Ma. Lourdes Celina Lopez, Rose, Riana Micole, and Christopher Yanson were also dismissed as “no sufficient evidence was established by complainant” against them, Narvasa added.
Ricardo Yanson Jr. was, however, indicted for grave coercion and violation of the Public Service Act, and Emily Yanson was also indicted for falsification and perjury, both of which their lawyers will continue to question before the Secretary of Justice and exhaust all available legal remedies, the press statement added.
Also dismissed were the charges filed against the Yanson 4 for robbery by use of force upon things and possession of picklock or similar tools, the press release said.
Indeed, how can a person that owns the property be considered a robber for getting into it even forcibly or by using a picklock?
Continued tomorrow.
