By Benjamin Pulta | Philippine News Agency
Prosecutors have dismissed the criminal complaints filed by business tycoon Charlie “Atong” Ang against his former employee, Julie “Dondon” Patidongan, for implicating him in the case of the missing sabungeros (cockfight enthusiasts).
In a 19-page resolution dated Sept. 30 and made public Monday, the Mandaluyong Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the charges against Patidongan and co-respondent Alan “Brown” Bantiles “for want of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.”
Ang filed complaints of robbery-extortion, grave threats, grave coercion, slander, and incriminating an innocent person against Patidongan and Bantiles. He claimed the duo demanded P300 million in exchange for not incriminating him in the case.
Prosecutors, however, noted that all evidence presented were insufficient to prove intimidation, citing that it was Ang who made repeated calls to the respondents.
“First, the call logs show that all communications between complainant (Ang) and respondent Bantiles from 08 to 19 February 2025 were outgoing calls initiated by complainant himself. This fact substantially undermines the claim that the latter was under persistent threats and extortion during this period,” the Prosecutor’s Office said.
“In typical extortion scenarios, it is the offender who initiates contact to issue demands or threats. The absence of incoming calls or messages from Bantiles over several days renders implausible the assertion that the complainant was under constant pressure or coercion.”
The prosecutors also noted that Ang admitted having made campaign contributions to Patidongan’s mayoralty candidacy in the months that the latter was allegedly extorting from him.
Ang’s continued financial support for Patidongan’s mayoralty candidacy amounting to P12 million between February and April 2025 “stands in stark contrast to his averment that respondents had already conspired to rob, kidnap and possibly kill him as early as September 2023,” the Prosecutor’s Office said.
“(I)t would be difficult to reconcile how the complainant, a seasoned businessman of considerable resources and influence, would still choose to fund the very person allegedly orchestrating a criminal scheme against him devoid of any hesitation or visible precaution.” (PNA)
