The Department of Justice dismissed as hearsay with inadmissible evidence the complaint affidavits filed by lawyer Sigfrid A. Fortun against the Yanson matriarch and her two children in connection with the management of Rural Transit Mindanao Inc. (RTMI), Bachelor Express Inc. (BEI) and Mindanao Star Bus Transport Inc. (MSBTI).
In a resolution dated April 27, 2022, Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Philip L. dela Cruz denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Fortun challenging the DOJ Resolution dated October 18, 2021 on the perjury, falsification of public documents and qualified theft filed against Olivia V. Yanson and other respondents.
Fortun represented four Yanson siblings – Roy V. Yanson, Emily V. Yanson, Ma. Lourdes Celina Yanson-Lopez and Ricardo V. Yanson Jr.
Aside from Olivia, other respondents in the case filed by Fortun include Ginnette Y. Dumancas, Leo Rey V. Yanson, Anita G. Chua, Daniel Nicolas Golez, Rey Ardo and Charles M. Dumancas.
“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 of the motion for reconsideration.
The DOJ said because the four Yanson siblings, as complainants, failed to attend the preliminary investigation, the complaint-affidavit of Fortun should be “dismissed for being hearsay in nature.”
“A careful reading of the complaint-affidavit executed by Attorney-in-Fact Atty. Sigfrid A. Fortun would readily show that he
did not attest that he was personally present during the events/incidents/happenings material in his complaint affidavit like
the alleged board meetings, stockholders meetings and the like. Such omission is fatal to his complaint as it is an elementary legal
principle that hearsay evidence cannot be the basis of probable cause,” the DOJ said.
“What further confounds that matter is that complainants Roy V. Yanson, Emily V. Yanson, Ma. Lourdes Celina Yanson-Lopez and Ricardo V. Yanson Jr. did not attend the preliminary investigation of this case. 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 added.
Under Section 3, Rule 110, as well as Section 3, Rule 113, both of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, an affidavit must be subscribed and sworn to by the offended party, not by the offended party’s attorney-in-fact.