Atong Ang's extortion complaint vs. 'whistleblowers' dismissed

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong has dismissed the extortion complaint filed by businessman Charlie “Atong” Ang against whistleblower Julie “Dondon” Patidongan and Alan Bantiles, saying it lacks necessary factual details and sufficient proof. 

In a 19-page resolution dated September 30, the city prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Patidongan and Bantiles for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, grave threats, grave coercion, slander, and incriminating an innocent person.

“This Office finds no prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction to indict respondents for attempted robbery with intimidation of person, grave coercion, and grave threats,” it said.

It also found that there was no prima facie evidence to convict them of slander.

The case stemmed from Ang’s claim that Patidongan and Bantiles, another former employee, threatened to link him to the disappearance of the missing sabungeros if he refused to pay P300 million.

Appeal

Ang’s lawyer Atty. Gabriel Villareal said they would file an appeal to the Department of Justice by the end of the month.

“No comment as of the moment. We reserve our comments for our appeal,” he said in a message to reporters.

Meanwhile, in a press statement, the Kapunan and Castillo law office said Ang's children have filed their counter-affidavits before the Department of Justice.

It said allegations linking them to the missing sabungeros are "baseless and bereft of credible evidence."

"The complaint against the children of Mr. Atong Ang rests solely on the statements of a co-respondent and supposed, whistleblower, Julie A. Patidongan. Unfortunately, such testimony, baseless and uncorroborated as it is, clearly failed to establish the crimes charged with prima facie evidence with a reasonable proceed," it said.

"On the other hand, in their counter-affidavit, the children of Mr. Ang were able to squarely refute the allegations of Dondon (Patidongan) and prsented concrete proof affirming their innocence," it added.

Defamatory words

Meanwhile, in its resolution, the city prosecutor said that Ang failed to precisely cite the exact defamatory words allegedly spoken by Patidongan.

“Although the video of the alleged interview was included in the complaint, as the claimant asserted to have been harmed, the complainant should have clearly and specifically identified the alleged defamatory words,” it said.

Aside from this, the prosecutors said that Ang’s claim that the term ‘mastermind’ refers to him relies on a TikTok post that allegedly connected him to the televised interview. 

It added that the office cannot assign probative value to a post without evidence proving its authorship, authenticity, and relevance. 

“In this case, no independent evidence has been provided to demonstrate that viewers of the televised segment, aside from the unverified TikTok post, would reasonably conclude that the ‘mastermind’ being referenced was the complainant,” it said.

Aside from this, the prosecutor said that the call logs between Ang and Bantiles were calls initiated by Ang himself. It said this undermined his claim that he was under persistent threats and extortion.

“Instead, the documented pattern shows complainant initiating contact with his supposed extortionists, suggesting a willingness or an initiative, inconsistent with a victim's reaction to coercion,” it said.

The prosecutor said Ang’s offer of financial support for Patidongan’s mayoral run.

Aside from this, the office said that the credibility of the witnesses provided by Ang is “highly questionable and significantly undermines the strength” of the prosecution’s case.

It said that the timing and content of their affidavits were questionable.

“This timing suggests that their statements may have been fabricated not in pursuit of justice but as a calculated response to rising public scrutiny,” it said.

“It is also possible that the complainant, fearing legal or reputational consequences, may have orchestrated these statements to shift blame and preemptively discredit respondent Patidongan’s accusations,” it added.

Patidongan’s camp said this was “a very good” development.

“Kasi malinaw na sa umpisa pa lang talagang makikita mo na binabasura na ng piskalya ‘yung mga posibleng aksyon na pwedeng gawin laban sa credibility ng aking kliyente,” Atty. Manuel Ventura, Patidongan's lawyer, said in an ambush interview.

(Because it’s clear that from the very beginning, you can already see that the prosecution is dismissing any possible actions that could question my client’s credibility.)

“Alam niyo naman napaka vital ng role ng aking kliyente dito bilang isang testigo sa kaso ng sabungero na ito,” he added.

Ventura said they would definitely file counter-charges.

It was Patidongan who linked Ang and several other individuals to the case of the missing sabungeros. He also claimed that more than 100 sabungeros were abducted, killed, and then dumped at Taal Lake.

Ang has repeatedly denied any role in the disappearance of the cockfighters. –NB, GMA Intergrated News