The defense of Emily Yanson – 2

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

I asked yesterday about the source of the shares of stocks of the six siblings of Ricardo B. Yanson. The DOF prosecutor had an answer – that agreement among the heirs was only a recognition that they are heirs. This opinion was made to apply to the claim of Emily Yanson. If we follow that thinking, then the other siblings cannot claim that the agreement was proof that they own shares in the corporation. The prosecutor’s conclusion is absurd even to an ordinary mind.

Surely the prosecutor read the entire agreement, so why did he ignore the major portion of that agreement among the heirs, including Olivia’s alleged shares?

I will not fathom his motivation; he has his reasons that we cannot divine. As the Holy Writ tells us, “by their fruits you may know them.”

In that agreement, the Yanson heirs – Olivia, Roy, Celina, Emily, Ginnette, Ricardo Jr. and Leo Rey – agreed to two things: Olivia waiving all her rights to the properties, and the six siblings will divide the properties – corporations and all – equally among themselves.

Clearly, whatever shares the five have is the same as that of Emily. So, how come the DOF prosecutor said this agreement is not proof that Emily has a share in VTI, but recognizing the others’ shares? Did Emily sell her shares or gave it away? Should he not have pursued the matter or mention that there was such a division of ownership?

From what I read, he did not mention this division of the properties and the sharing; otherwise, he would have concluded that Emily has shares in the VTI. Why he ignored this fact is, as a street guy used to say, “that is the puzzlement, my friend.”

Based on the agreement, Olivia has no more share and therefore, Emily is telling the truth that her mother is not a stockholder of the company. So how can she be accused of having falsified the report to the SEC?

Leo Rey also signed that agreement and in fact considers this agreement as the source of his claim to being a stockholder. So, why did he charge his sister with a crime he knew she did not commit? Has Leo Rey ever treated Emily through these years as a poseur or fake stockholder whenever they have a board meeting or stockholder’s meeting? He did not because he knew that she, like him, is a stockholder.

Thus, as ordinary citizens and audiences of the family feud would usually ask when watching a soap opera: what motivated him to accuse Emily now of being a fake stockholder? After all the years he knew her, how come he only now swears she is fake stockholder?

As in life, the answer is in the question: Does Leo Rey covet her share of the company as to swear in denying Emily her right? I hope this is not so, but I cannot see that the purpose of these criminal charges that will send Emily to jail for years, is justice.

Emily’s lawyers insist that the agreement cannot be ignored to show that Emily has shares in VTI. But even setting aside the truth therein, the fact that the case filed by Olivia to set aside that agreement is pending in court, the lawyers say there is a “prejudicial issue”. So long as the court has not voided the agreement, it remains valid and therefore Emily has shares in the VTI.

But the DOJ prosecutor disregarded the claim of prejudicial question, instead went over the issue, and decided that the agreement has no value as far only as the claim of Emily that she is a stockholder. In effect, the prosecutor made his own conclusion separate from whatever the court would eventually decide.

Looking at this DOJ prosecutor decision from another angle, the prosecutor just accepted the claim of Olivia and Leo Rey that Emily has no share in the company and acted accordingly. He did not wait for the court to make that conclusion.

In fact all their actions, from convening a special board meeting that elected Leo Rey to replace Roy, Olivia acting as stockholder and corporate secretary, filing cases on behalf of the corporation and opening bank accounts,  are based on their conclusion that the extra-judicial agreement is null and void.

Are they not swearing to falsehood?