Atong Ang’s camp says ‘Totoy’ lacks credibility in 'sabungeros' case
MANILA, Philippines — Alias "Totoy," the whistleblower in the case of the missing sabungeros or cockfight enthusiasts, lacks credibility to qualify as a state witness, according to the lawyer of tycoon Charlie "Atong" Ang.
In a News5 interview on Wednesday, July 2, Atong Ang’s legal counsel Lorna Kapunan said Totoy, who recently identified himself as Julie "Dondon" Patidongan, cannot serve as a state witness because he is allegedly “directly responsible” for the abductions.
“The Department of Justice (DOJ) is taking the wrong lead. Hindi puwedeng maging state witness 'yan,” Kapunan said referring to Patidongan in the interview.
(The Department of Justice is taking the wrong lead. He [Patidongan] can't be a state witness.)
Kapunan added that Ang will file a libel complaint against Patidongan on Thursday, July 3.
In contrast, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla earlier told reporters on June 26 that Totoy’s testimony appears credible as it is supported by documents and videos.
When asked if Patidongan could qualify as a state witness, Remulla said: “Step-by-step 'yan. That will be left for the prosecution to pave the way for this to happen.”
According to a report by GMA News’ "24 Oras," Patidongan named Atong Ang and two other individuals as the alleged masterminds behind the disappearance of cockfight enthusiasts.
RELATED: Atong Ang, Gretchen Barretto tagged in missing sabungeros case by suspect — report
Gretchen Barretto was also implicated in the case, as mentioned by Patidongan in the same GMA News report.
The Department of Justice has yet to comment on the new claims.
What qualifies someone to be a state witness?
Section 17, Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure lays out the conditions under which a person may be discharged as an accused to become a state witness:
The court may grant a discharge, upon the motion of the prosecution and with the consent of the accused, if:
a) There is an absolute necessity for the accused’s testimony;
b) There is no other direct evidence available for proper prosecution;
c) The testimony can be substantially corroborated on material points;
d) The accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
e) The accused has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.
- Latest
- Trending
