A press statement was issued yesterday by the counsels of the four Yanson siblings, dismissing reports that the Court of Appeals allegedly “affirmed the arrest warrants” issued against them as “fake news.”
A statement issued by Philip Sigrid Fortun, Shiela Sison, Fortun, Narvasa & Salazar office, said that the information from CA resolution against their client siblings Roy, Emily, Maria Lourdes Celina, and Ricardo Yanson Jr. are “unfounded speculations.”
We find these so-called news reports containing sub judice information, prejudicial to our clients, not only highly inappropriate, but also disrespectful to the court processes, considering that the matter and issues subject of the report are still the matter of litigation before the trial and appellate courts, the counsels of four Yanson siblings further said.
The accurate fact about the case before the Court of Appeals Cebu, in its resolution dated June 21, 2023 that decided the petition filed by our clients, is that it stood by and affirmed its earlier decision dated September 14, 2022, nullifying the arrest warrants issued by the RTC against our clients, which stated “wherefore, the petition is partly granted. The Court hereby:
(1) Nullifies the order dated March 15, 2022 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Bacolod City, in criminal case number 20 52097, in so far as it directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest against petitioners for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.
(2) Directs public respondents to resolve the motion for early resolution (Re Warrant of Arrest) and to conscientiously observe for her Constitutional mandate in doing so.”
It added that both parties filed their respective motions for partial reconsideration of this Sept. 14 decision, which the CA Cebu both denied in its resolution dated June 21, 2023, that also denied the respondents’ request to reverse the court’s decision nullifying the arrest warrants against our client, among others.
In fact, in the said resolution, the CA Cebu rejected the arguments and contentions of the respondents stating that the court “can never agree that a finding of probable cause to issue warrants for petitioners’ arrest can be premised simply upon the following statement, acting on the motion of private complainant, let warrant of arrest issue against the accused,” the statement added.
It is thus misleading to report that the CA had “affirmed” the arrest warrant against our clients, the statement further said.
As to other procedural issues and matters decided by CA, the counsels of Yanson 4 added that they will no longer comment on them, considering that these are all matters that are already before the courts.
Suffice it to say that our clients already elevated this matter before the Supreme Court and filed the appropriate petition for this purpose, the statement further said.*
