Atong Ang lawyer calls arrest warrant ‘premature,’ ‘legally questionable’

The lead counsel of businessman Charlie “Atong” Ang on Wednesday assailed what he described as a “premature” decision by a Laguna court to issue a warrant of arrest against his client in connection with the missing sabungero case.

Atty. Gabriel Villareal also described the order issued by the Sta. Cruz, Laguna Regional Trial Court Branch as “legally questionable,” arguing that it 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.

He added that the action violates Ang’s rights and may be considered constitutionally infirm under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in Roberts vs. Court of Appeals and Soliven vs. Makasiar.

Villareal said the defense would exhaust all available legal remedies to give Ang the opportunity to challenge the arrest order.

“I assure the public that Mr. Ang will continue to respect the authority of the court and submit himself to the processes of the law,” he said.

However, Villareal maintained that Ang is innocent of all charges leveled against him by self-confessed whistleblower Julie “Dondon” Patidongan, whom he described as the real mastermind of the crime.

He criticized what he called the bias of the DOJ in building the case against his client by relying solely on Patidongan’s testimony.

“It is unfortunate that the DOJ has allowed itself to become a witting instrument of Patidongan’s manipulations aimed at absolving himself of legal culpability at the expense of Mr. Ang,” Villareal said.

He added that no physical evidence has been presented 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,” he said.

“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.