The criminal complaints filed by businessman Charlie Tiu Hay Ang, also known as Atong Ang, against his former employee Julie Patidongan and an associate, Alan Bantiles, have been dismissed by the Mandaluyong City Prosecutor’s Office.

This was stated in a 19-page resolution dated 30 September 2025, covering complaints for Attempted Robbery with Intimidation, Grave Threats, Grave Coercion, Slander, and Incriminating an Innocent Person, all in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

The cases were dismissed for “want of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction.”

The complaints stemmed from Ang’s allegations that Patidongan and Bantiles conspired to extort P300 million from him. Ang claimed the demand was made in exchange for Patidongan’s silence and to prevent him from implicating Ang in the high-profile case of the missing sabungeros (cockfighting enthusiasts), for which Patidongan is facing a separate kidnapping case.

The prosecutor’s office found Ang’s narrative and evidence inconsistent and insufficient. Key to the dismissal were the call logs submitted as evidence, which showed that all communications from 8 to 19 February 2025 were outgoing calls initiated by Ang himself, not by the respondents.

“This fact substantially undermines the claim that the latter was under persistent threats and extortion during this period,” the resolution stated, noting that the pattern of contact was inconsistent with a victim of coercion.

Prosecutors also found it highly questionable that Ang would contribute P12 million to Patidongan’s mayoral campaign in Surigao del Sur between February and April 2025 if he truly believed Patidongan had plotted to kidnap and kill him as early as September 2023, as alleged by his witnesses.

“Such conduct is not only counterintuitive, it also strains credulity,” the resolution read, adding that Ang took no protective measures and showed no hesitation in providing substantial financial support to his alleged extortionist.

The credibility of Ang’s witnesses, including a trusted former aide and a lawyer associate, was also called into question, with the prosecution noting their accounts appeared “belated, fabricated, and inherently unreliable.”

As for the slander charge, which was more appropriately classified as libel due to the televised nature of the statements, the prosecution found the complaint lacked specificity. It failed to cite the exact defamatory words spoken by Patidongan in his masked interview on GMA Network and provided no competent evidence to prove that the public would identify Ang as the “mastermind” being referenced.

With the complaint dismissed, no criminal information will be filed against Patidongan and Bantiles in court for these charges.

However, Patidongan remains a respondent in the separate kidnapping case concerning the missing sabungeros, which is pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.