Atong Ang's lawyer assails arrest warrant, vows to exhaust all legal remedies
Gaming tycoon Charlie “Atong” Ang files raps against Julie “Dondon” Patidongan alias “Totoy” and Alan Bantiles alias “Brown” who accused him to be the mastermind behind the abduction of several cockfight watchers before the Mandaluyong City Prosecutor's Office on Thursday, July 3, 2025. (Santi San Juan)
Premature and legally questionable.
This is how the lead counsel of businessman Charlie “Atong” Ang described the issuance of the arrest warrant against his client in connection with the missing sabungero case.
Lawyer Gabriel Villareal said the decision of the court in Sta. Cruz, Laguna failed to meet the constitutional requirements that should have been afforded to his client.
“Clearly, the court merely acted on the incomplete information provided by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in its determination of probable cause, without the counter affidavits and exculpatory evidence of the respondents, including Mr. Ang,” Villareal said.
Ang is facing arrest warrants for cases of kidnapping with homicide and kidnapping with serious illegal detention, according to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG).
All of the 18 accused in the two arrest warrants were already accounted for except for Ang.
But Villareal said the court decision to issue arrest warrants violates Ang’s rights and may be considered constitutionally infirm, citing the Constitution and a case that was already decided by the Supreme Court.
“We will exhaust all available legal remedies to give Mr. Ang the opportunity to challenge the arrest order,” said Villareal, as he emphasized that his client is innocent of the cases leveled against him.
He also assured the public that Ang “will continue to respect the authority of the court and submit himself to the processes of the law.”
DOJ bias?
Villareal also criticized what he called the bias of the Department of Justice in building the case against his client by relying solely on the testimony of whistleblower Julie “Dondon” Patidongan, whom he described as the real mastermind of the crime.
He said that no physical evidence has been presented by the DOJ to link Ang to the case and that only Patidongan’s narrative was used in determining probable cause.
“This case was built on haste and from the beginning there was an intent to use our client as a sacrificial lamb to protect the real mastermind of the crime,” said Villareal.
“Even as we regret that the court has apparently chosen to disregard our plea for fairness and due process, we will continue to avail ourselves of the remedies available to us and comply with the processes of the court,” Villareal added.