THE Department of Justice (DoJ) on Tuesday said it had found probable cause to charge a businessman and more than 20 others over the disappearance of dozens of cockfighting enthusiasts in 2021 and 2022. Charlie Tiu Hay Ang, also known as Atong Ang, and his co-defendants face multiple counts of kidnapping with homicide and kidnapping […]THE Department of Justice (DoJ) on Tuesday said it had found probable cause to charge a businessman and more than 20 others over the disappearance of dozens of cockfighting enthusiasts in 2021 and 2022. Charlie Tiu Hay Ang, also known as Atong Ang, and his co-defendants face multiple counts of kidnapping with homicide and kidnapping […]

DoJ finds probable cause in case of missing cockfighters

2025/12/09 21:03

THE Department of Justice (DoJ) on Tuesday said it had found probable cause to charge a businessman and more than 20 others over the disappearance of dozens of cockfighting enthusiasts in 2021 and 2022.

Charlie Tiu Hay Ang, also known as Atong Ang, and his co-defendants face multiple counts of kidnapping with homicide and kidnapping with serious illegal detention charges.

The DoJ said a panel of prosecutors found probable cause to indict the Filipino gambling magnate and several police officers on 10 counts of kidnapping with homicide.

It will also file 16 counts of kidnapping with serious illegal detention against the businessman, a police lieutenant colonel and eight others.

In a statement, Gabriel L. Villareal, Mr. Ang’s lawyer, described the DoJ resolution as “deeply flawed and grossly unfair,” and said they would file a motion for reconsideration.

“The ruling, while likely given the bias apparent from DoJ conduct, suffers from clear factual gaps and substantial inconsistencies,” he said. “Clearly, the panel relied heavily on the flawed testimony of a lone witness whose integrity is irreversibly compromised.”

Authorities earlier alleged that the missing cockfighters were killed and dumped near Taal Lake after being tagged as cheaters in online cockfighting.

Cases against other respondents were dismissed without prejudice. — Erika Mae P. Sinaking

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.