DoJ files charges vs Atong Ang over missing cockfighters

THE Department of Justice (DoJ) has filed criminal charges against businessman Charlie Tiu Hay Ang, also known as Atong Ang, in three regional trial courts (RTCs) in Southern Luzon over the missing cockfighters case, the agency said on Monday.

Justice Spokesperson Raphael Niccolo L. Martinez confirmed the filing of criminal charges last Friday, Dec. 19, before the RTCs in Lipa City in Batangas, and Santa Cruz and San Pablo City in Laguna. The charges include 10 counts of kidnapping with homicide and 16 counts of kidnapping with serious illegal detention.

State prosecutors found “prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction,” paving the way to indict Mr. Ang and the other respondents.

Mr. Ang’s legal counsel has filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) seeking to overturn his indictment.

Interior and Local Government Secretary Juanito Victor C. Remulla, Jr. on Monday said in an interview with ANC that because the charges are non-bailable, the issuance of warrants, which could happen “anytime now,” would likely lead to the immediate detention of the accused.

Mr. Martinez, however, clarified that the issuance of arrest warrant remains at the discretion of the respective courts.

“Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the courts wherein the Informations are filed will issue the corresponding warrants of arrest upon its determination of the existence of probable cause based on the evidence submitted and the resolution by the panel of prosecutors,” Mr. Martinez told reporters in a Viber group chat.

The DoJ’s prosecution hinges on the testimony of whistleblower Julie “Dondon” Patidongan, who has been admitted into the government’s Witness Protection Program.

Mr. Patidongan alleged that Mr. Ang orchestrated the abduction of the cockfighting enthusiasts, claiming the victims were killed and their remains were disposed of in Taal Lake.

In a message to reporters, his lawyer, Gabriel L. Villareal, maintained that the courts have a constitutional duty to thoroughly review the files before proceeding.

He noted that a motion for reconsideration is still pending before the DoJ and has not yet been elevated to the courts.

“The MR is before the DoJ; not yet with the courts. If the DoJ chooses to disregard the MR, they should be ready to take the consequences of their actions,” Mr. Villareal said.

“It is possible that the courts may overrule the disposition of the DoJ when they review the files.” — Erika Mae P. Sinaking