By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
Something is puzzling. According to the lawyers of the accused four Yanson children – Roy, Emily, Celina, and Ricardo Jr., there was no mention even by the presiding judge about the existence of a warrant of arrest against his clients.
In a press statement, Atty. Carlo Joaquin Narvasa, lawyer of the Yanson 4, claimed that on May 29 at the hearing of his clients motion to suspend proceedings and hold in abeyance issuance of warrant, the presiding judge, Municipal Court Judge Abraham Bayona, did not mention or inform the lawyer that a warrant was issued.
Then the lawyer revealed that on June 1, the CIDG-Bacolod served the “warrants of arrest”. He claimed the CIDG served the warrant ahead of the court’s issuance on June 1.
According to Narvasa, the clerk of court, Atty. Ruth Dizon, confirmed on May 29 that there was no warrant issued.
He further claimed that on Sunday, May 31, “elements of PNP-CIDG-Bacolod attempted to implement a ‘warrant’ for the arrest of the Yanson 4, even if none was released by the court for implementation.
Now we know there was indeed a warrant because according to the lawyer, it was served on June 1, Monday. The lawyer received a copy of the warrant also on that day. It also means that the lawyer failed to prevent its implementation in an effort last March because of the pandemic.
News reports say the lawyers for the Yanson 4 expressed “their concern that certain individuals are attempting to misuse the court system through the misrepresentation of the warrant’s unofficial release and implementation, as the Yanson 4 remain entitled to remedies available to them under the law.”
The lawyers said “it also is strange how news and copies of the purported warrant of arrest that was not released by the court nor had been brought to the attention of their counsel, had been circulated among members of the Bacolod media as early as Friday, or two days before its dubious release.”
That is a suspicion that the lawyer would help if he could identify the “certain individuals” rather than keep us guessing. I hope in due time the lawyers would unmask them. I am inclined to believe the Y4 lawyers know. Should they not raise this matter with the court?
The Y4 lawyers had, however, raised the alarm in the court of public opinion, an anticipatory move that prevented the weekend arrests.
However, the nagging questions are: how did the CIDG get the copies of the warrant before it was released, and why was the CIDG used?
Certainly, unless there is an “undercover agent”, the court order remains in the custody of the court and released only upon its orders. The court understands the implications on the right of the accused when its order is smuggled out of the court’s custody, especially on a weekend.
The Yanson 4 lawyers will be helping the cause of justice and the integrity of the court, not just of the judge but all its personnel if it can discover the source of the premature release. Lawyers are agents of the court so it must help.
The second issue that the lawyers, and I am certain the public as well, want clarified is why the CIDG was used. We know the CIDG is a component of the country’s police force, but it is a special unit. Its function is clear in its designation: investigation and detection. It is surprising if its expertise were used for a process that a policeman without specialized training can perform – like serving a warrant, unless it is a search warrant necessary in the CIDG function.
Not surprisingly, the Yanson 4 lawyer insisted that the accused Yanson siblings “know their rights under the Constitution and law as accused” in what he said “a sham criminal suit filed against them as members of the Board of Directors of Vallacar Transit Inc., They stand firm in their belief that the charges are trumped-up, and they still have remedies for the revocation of the warrant, or even posting bail.”
There is no doubt; the warrant of arrest is not the end of the story, but just part of the judicial process and another phase in the family feud. The public concern is the integrity of the judicial processes. The Court, the PNP, and the public would be interested.
