Mandaluyong prosecutor dismisses Atong Ang’s libel, complaint vs Patidongan
MANILA, Philippines — All complaints filed by tycoon Atong Ang against self-proclaimed whistleblower Julie Patidongan and his former employee Alan Batiles have been dismissed by the Mandaluyong Prosecutor’s Office.
In a resolution dated September 30, Mandaluyong prosecutors dismissed the complaints filed by Ang against Patidongan and Batiles for “want of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.”
Ang filed the complaints against the pair in July. The cases stemmed from what he described as extortion attempts and threats to falsely implicate him in the high-profile case of the “missing sabungeros,” in which Patidongan accused the tycoon of being the mastermind.
The tycoon also claimed that Patidongan tried to extort money amounting to P300 million.
The prosecutors dismissed the following complaints filed by the tycoon against Patidongan
- Conspiracy to commit attempted robbery with violence or intimidation of persons
- Grave threats
- Grave coercion
- Grave slander
- Incriminating innocent persons
Conspiracy to commit attempted robbery with violence or intimidation of persons, grave threats
The Prosecutor’s Office dismissed this complaint by Ang, stating that his allegations and the evidence presented were insufficient to prove intimidation.
According to the resolution, the complainant’s actions were inconsistent with those of a coercion victim. Call logs showed that Ang initiated the majority of communications with Patidongan and Batiles, suggesting a willingness to engage or negotiate.
“If it were indeed true that complainant was being threatened or blackmailed, the reasonable response would have been to cease contact, report the matter to authorities, or otherwise avoid engagement with alleged extortionists,” the prosecutor said.
“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 added.
The resolution also noted that Ang’s financial conduct contradicted the behavior of someone facing grave threats, specifically pointing out that he provided P12 million in support of Patidongan’s mayoral candidacy, even after allegedly being warned about his involvement in a crime.
“Such conduct is not only counterintuitive, it also strains credulity. The natural reaction of a reasonable person upon learning of a solid threat to his life or property would be to take immediate protective measures such as cutting ties, conducting verification, reporting the matter to law enforcement, or at the very least, confronting the person involved,” the prosecutor said.
“In toto, complainant's evidence for his charges of Attempted Robbery, Grave Coercion, and Grave Threats, fall short of the threshold needed to support indictment therefore, let alone establish reasonable certainty of conviction,” it added.
Incriminating innocent persons. The prosecutors also did not find sufficient evidence to indict the pair for the crime of “incriminating innocent persons.”
According to the prosecutors, citing a Supreme Court ruling, this provision under the Revised Penal Code only applies to deliberate acts like the planting or fabrication of physical evidence intended to subject an innocent person to criminal liability.
In this case, according to the prosecutor, there was no allegation of "planting" or similar fabrication of evidence against the complainant.
It also pointed out that no “competent tribunal” had issued a finding that Ang was wrongly accused or falsely prosecuted due to the pair’s actions.
Slander. The complaint of slander was also unfounded, according to the prosecutor, saying that Patidongan’s televised comments against Ang were more appropriately classified as Libel under the Revised Penal Code, given the publication through mass communication.
However, the prosecutor’s office also determined that a libel charge was unfounded because of significant evidentiary gaps.
Specifically, the resolution noted two flaws: First, the Ang failed to precisely quote the exact defamatory words allegedly spoken by the respondent during the televised interview, which deprived the prosecutor of the opportunity to assess the statement's content, context, and malice; and second, the crucial element of identifiability was not proven.
“Thus, identifiability requires that the defamatory matter clearly and unmistakably [refer to the] complainant, so that people who know him can identify him without guesswork or external hints. 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],” the prosecutor said.
“Without such credible proof, this key element of Libel remains unproven,” it added.
What happened before. In a GMA News report aired on July 2, Patidongan alleged that Ang and three other individuals, including actress Gretchen Barretto, were masterminds behind the disappearance of the cockfight enthusiasts.
Patidongan also accused Barretto of involvement, claiming she and Ang were often together.
- Latest
- Trending
