The Bacolod City regional trial court (RTC) has declared four children of the owners of the country’s biggest passenger bus company as fugitives from justice after they remained at large despite the arrest order issued against them more than three years ago in 2022.

Declared fugitives from justice were siblings Roy V. Yanson, Ma. Lourdes Celina Y. Lopez, Ricardo V. Yanson Jr., and Emily V. Yanson -- children of the owners of Yanson Group of Bus Companies that operates Vallacar Transit, Inc. (VTI).

They were charged before the RTC on June 9, 2020 with qualified theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.

They were accused of “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously taking, stealing, and carrying away various items which they had access to by reason of their fiduciary capacity in the company.”

Finding probable cause, the RTC issued an arrest order on Dec. 9, 2022.

Qualified theft is non-bailable if the amount involved is P500,000 or more.

The prosecution asked the trial court to declare them fugitives from justice. The plea was granted.

Court records showed that Roy, Emily, and Ricardo Jr. left the Philippines in March 2020 and have not returned since then.

Ma. Lourdes Celina, on the other hand, left in 2005 and when an arrest order was served for a different offense in May 2020, her estranged husband declared that she is abroad and has not returned since then.

In a resolution dated March 17, 2026, Judge Jose Manuel A. Lopez of RTC Branch 50 said that it has been more than five years since the case was filed and the four accused have not been arraigned.

The resolution stated: “Warrants were issued for their arrest, but they remain unserved because they have evaded the jurisdiction of this Court by fleeing to another country, all the while, even as they evade the arrest, they have sent representatives to appear on their behalf.”

It also stated: “With this, the accused are in ‘spectator mode,’ with representatives appearing on their behalf, they remain untouched by our criminal law. They stand watching from unknown locations and enjoy all the benefits and reliefs of our rules, as though they are present in our jurisdiction. Just like spectators, they await the outcome of their trials taking advantage of all our laws but not really committing to our jurisdiction nor within the reach of our criminal laws.”

The trial court said that due process has been extended to the accused. “For years, this Court has given the accused the chance to surrender, in the hopes that they would be given a chance to defend themselves. Until today, they have not committed to the jurisdiction of this Court, and have remained to be ‘at large.’"

It also said that even after the filing of the prosecution’s motion to declare the four accused as fugitives from justice, “this court still held onto the hope that the accused would surrender and commit themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court.”

It added: “Until now, they have not committed themselves to the jurisdiction of this court. Finally, before the resolution of the motion of the prosecution, the Court gave the accused another month to surrender to the jurisdiction of the Court in its effort to afford the accused all the opportunity to take advantage of due process and to voluntarily surrender to the jurisdiction of the Court. Until now, they fail to do so.”

Thus, the RTC said that the flight of the four accused and their deliberate intent to evade prosecution should be taken against them.

“For their willful evasion of the court's jurisdiction, they should be sanctioned, rather than rewarded,” the court stressed as it declared the four accused fugitives from justice.

Invoked by the RTC in its resolution was an earlier decision of the Supreme Court (SC) which declared that fugitives from justice are persons who evade criminal prosecution before the courts and those who flee after conviction to avoid the punishment imposed on them.

The SC said that fugitives from justice are barred from seeking judicial relief unless they voluntarily surrender.

It also said that an accused is generally considered a fugitive from justice when they fail to appear physically before the court when required by law, the rules, or an order from the judge.

More specifically, a person who leaves the Philippines knowing that a criminal case has been filed in court and that a warrant of arrest has been issued shows a clear intent to evade arrest and prosecution, making that person a fugitive from justice and possibly disentitled to any judicial relief, the SC said.

The starting points to determine whether a person is a fugitive from justice are the filing of a criminal case before the court and the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and the person knows the charge and the order of arrest, it also said.

It added that knowledge of the charge and the arrest order may come from actual notice, such as personally receiving a copy of the criminal charge sheet, or from constructive notice, such as clear, public, and documented efforts by law enforcement to serve legal process even if personal service was evaded or unsuccessful.