FILE PHOTO: Yanson matriarch Olivia Yanson. INQUIRER.net
BACOLOD CITY — The Department of Justice (DOJ) has dismissed the complaints filed by the four Yanson siblings against their mother, two siblings, and four others for being “hearsay with inadmissible evidence.”
In a resolution dated April 27, 2022 but was only released to the media recently, the DOJ junked the complaints for alleged perjury, falsification of public documents, and qualified theft in connection with the management of Rural Transit Mindanao Inc., Bachelor Express Inc., and Mindanao Star Bus Transport Inc.
The Yanson family owns the largest bus companies in the country.
The complaints were filed by lawyer Sigfrid Fortun in behalf of Roy, Emily, Ricardo, and Celina against the latter’s mother Olivia Yanson, their siblings Ginnette Dumancas and Leo Rey Yanson, and Anita Chua, Danie Nicolas Golez, Rey Ardo, and Charles Dumancas.
Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Philip Dela Cruz, in his resolution, denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Fortun challenging a DOJ Resolution dated Oct. 18, 2021 that dismissed the charges against the Yanson matriarch and her co-accused.
“Since the very complaint-affidavit executed by attorney-in-fact Atty. Sigfrid A. Fortun suffers from an inherent legal flaw or infirmity: hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence, there is no need to pass upon the other grounds raised by the former in his motion for reconsideration as the same adverse verdict must necessarily be rendered on said other arguments that are anchored on the same defective complaint-affidavit,” the DOJ said in its resolution to the motion for reconsideration.
The DOJ said that with the failure by the complainants to attend the preliminary investigation, the complaint-affidavit of Fortun should be “dismissed for being hearsay in nature.”
“Due to their omission, the investigating prosecutor was deprived of the chance or opportunity to clarify from them whether the facts/events/incidents attributed to them by their attorney-in-fact are true,” it said.
The DOJ said that until the very end of the preliminary investigation, the allegations in the complaint-affidavit remained hearsay due to lack of corroboration and failure of the complainants to appear and confirm the veracity of the happening of the facts as narrated by their attorney-in-fact.
In his motion for reconsideration, Fortun insisted that under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, he as attorney-in-fact of the complainants was allowed to verify the complaints.
The DOJ disagreed, saying that Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court applies only to civil proceedings.
“Even in civil proceedings, a further reading of Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court would show that the rules still require the affiant to attest that the allegations in the pleadings are true and correct, based on his or her personal knowledge or based on authentic documents. However, a careful perusal of the allegations in the subject complaint would show that Atty. Sigfrid A. Fortun failed to abide by the said rule as he never attested and claimed that he was personally present during the facts/events/incidents narrated in his complaint-affidavit,” it said.
Under Section 3, Rule 110, as well as Section 3, Rule 113, both of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the affidavit must be subscribed and sworn to by the offended party, not by the offended party’s attorney-in-fact.
“Due to the failure of complainants to execute their respective affidavit on said matters and the failure of Atty. Fortun to categorically state that he was physically present during the meetings and events alleged in his complaint-affidavit, the indubitable conclusion is that Atty. Fortun is testifying on matters that he only heard from the complainants which were hearsay in character,” the DOJ said.
Related Story:
Yanson siblings claim reelection as corporate officials of 2 bus firms
Yanson feud further heats up with falsification, perjury raps vs faction in bus ownership war
JMS