Republic of the Philippines

Fifth Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Branch 1
Sorsogon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 2016-1359

Plaintiff, & 2016-1360
- versus - For:
FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASE
JOSEPH YAP, III UNDER ART. 182 OF THE RPC
Accused.
X======================X

OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR PROBATION OF

JOSEPH H. YAP, III

The undersigned Private Complainant Mary Louise B. Reyes, unto this Honorable Court,
most respectfully opposes the Application for Probation filed by Joseph H. Yap, III and in support
thereof, most respectfully states the following:

1. During the re-cross examination of the then accused Joseph H. Yap, III, as transcribed on
pages 20 to 21 of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated December 11, 2017, the
Honorable Presiding Judge Michael A. Balmaceda personally examined Mr. Yap, to wit:

COURT: No, no, no, just answer the question.

Q. Was the sale coursed through an agent or broker?

A. Naturo po niya, ni Mr. Reyes.

Q. So, the ultimate buyer of the property was through the effort of Mr. Reyes?

A. Yes, Sir.

Q And as you mentioned earlier since the price did not fetch about the Php2,500.00,
if we were to use the stipulation that was demanded by your father, he would not
receive any commission?

A. Yes, po.

Q. Would you not find it unfair on this situation considering that due to his effort the
sale was consummated?

A. Di naman po ako makakapagdesisyon ng…

 Q. Yes. I am asking you, you know the fairness of what happened later on?

A. I think it was not.

Q. It would not be unfair?

A. When he referred to a buyer he did not help in the negotiation.

Q. That is why you believed that it was not really unfair on the part of Mr.
Reyes not receiving anything from the sale of the lot?

A. Yes, Your Honor.

2. Mr. Yap had the boldness and temerity to answer the Honorable Presiding Judge who was
asking him and inquiring into the facts of the case by admitting to the Judge that despite the
efforts of Mr. Emmanuel M. Reyes which led to the consummation of the sale of the subject
property, he did not find it unfair to shortchange Mr. Reyes, thereby unjustly enriching
himself at the expense of another. Clearly, even at risk of conviction and with his inclination
to the side of evil, there is no remorse on his end as his only concern was to lie, dissemble
and pervert the course of judicial proceedings.

3. His fleet of cases stated in the opposition of my co-complainant Mr. Reyes and still pending
in court are indicative of Mr. Yap’s personal character and predictive of his future behavior.
It is highly unlikely for an intrinsically good and law-abiding citizen to be charged with
cases every now and then. Mr. Yap, after being convicted and if allowed to go on probation,
is more likely to recidivate as there is a very small potential for his rehabilitation. There is
nothing in his moral qualities and personal circumstances that would compel this Honorable
Court to grant his application if the criteria under paragraphs A, B and C of Section 8 of
Presidential Decree No. 968 otherwise knowns as the Probation Law, to wit:

Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:

(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most
effectively by his commitment to an institution; or
(b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit
another crime; or
(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.

The Court must not only grant probation because the convict is qualified, but it must also be
ensured that he deserves it. For Mr. Yap, reformation is best served through imprisonment
where he may be fully enlightened and as a means to avert his future crimes.

4. As a student of law and a soon-to-be member of the legal profession, I have the utmost
regard for rules and the laws. Please do not let our judicial, more particularly our criminal
justice system be trodden down by allowing a person who scoffed at the dignity of our
 courts to roam freely via a grant probation, apparently as good as impunity, after mocking
and trampling on the dignity of our legal proceedings. For even persons are sent to jail for a
day by strict judges due to a minor act of contempt or for violation of local or barangay
ordinances, is it not that making false statements under oath is far worse and punishment
must be inflicted to a person of greater evil? Justice is not only about giving persons what
they are lawfully entitled to; justice is also about punishing the wicked and the reprobate
because they deserve it.

5. The crime of False Testimony is one that flouts a basic yet the most essential value that must
be accorded to the courts of justice: RESPECT. This kind of offense entails service in
prison as the appropriate measure not only to remind and deter others from repeating the
same deplorable act but also to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime committed as well.

6. It is important to recognize that Mr. Yap committed a public wrong – a wrong that concerns
all the members of the society and the courts must be ready to render the appropriate
punishment, if found guilty. It is incumbent upon this Court to ensure that justice is formally
administered. In offenses involving the breach of a court’s authoritative code and disrespect
to its solemn proceedings, then the wrongdoings merit the censure of the State as a whole so
others may learn from his example and obey the laws. Mr. Yap must be punished just
enough to deter him and others like him who have no regard for the judicial proceedings
from committing similar future crimes to make him or them realize the severity of the
wrongfulness of such act.