The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday confirmed that trial proceedings have begun in two of the three kidnapping with homicide cases filed against business tycoon Charlie “Atong” Ang and several co-accused, while a third court has deferred issuing an arrest warrant pending further review.

In a press briefing, DOJ spokesperson Atty. Polo Martinez said the cases, docketed as People of the Philippines vs. Charlie Atong Ang, et al., were filed before three separate regional trial courts in Santa Cruz, Laguna; Lipa City, Batangas; and San Pablo, Laguna.

In Santa Cruz, Laguna, Martinez said the court issued a warrant of arrest on 14 January 2026 and has already commenced trial proceedings.

Similarly, the Lipa City, Batangas court issued its warrant on 16 January and has also started trial.

Meanwhile, pretrial and arraignment proceedings have begun for those who were arrested.

Ang, however, remains at large and is considered a fugitive from justice, according to prosecutors.

The charges stem from allegations of kidnapping with homicide, with the kidnapping component classified as illegal detention.

San Pablo case under review

Unlike the two courts, the San Pablo, Laguna Regional Trial Court has yet to issue a warrant of arrest after the accused filed a motion to defer or suspend proceedings.

“As for the pending case in San Pablo, Laguna, we informed the public that the issuance of the warrant of arrest was deferred by the court following a motion to defer or suspend proceedings by the accused,” Martinez added.

In the same press briefing, Prosecutor General Richard Fadullon explained that once prosecutors recommend indictment and file the information, courts are given up to 10 days to determine whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant.

In the San Pablo case, the court ordered the DOJ to submit not only the evidence supporting the indictment but also the counter-affidavits and contrary evidence presented by the accused during the preliminary investigation.

“Over our objection, the court issued an omnibus order requiring us to submit everything, including the counter-evidence,” Fadullon said in mixed English and Filipino.

“We will comply so the court can determine, once we complied, that will be sufficient basis already for the court to come up with a determination whether it should issue a warrant or not,” he added.

Asked what would happen if the court ultimately declines to issue a warrant, Fadullon said it would be premature to speculate.

“I do not and cannot speculate on what the court will decide,” he said.

DOJ seeks consolidation

The DOJ has requested the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, to transfer and consolidate the cases into one venue, citing that all three stem from the same set of facts.

Fadullon noted the differing rulings among the courts.

“It is puzzling because these are based on the same set of facts. And yet the findings of the courts vary. One or two courts issue warrants of arrest,” he said.

He noted that two courts found sufficient basis to issue warrants, while another sought further evaluation.

“Now, I do not know if the court is just being cautious. It’s just being careful,” he said.

“But certainly kami, ang tingin namin is bakit magkaiba ang pananaw ng mga husgado samantalang ang pinagbabasehan naman niya ay isang set of facts naman,” he added.

The request for consolidation remains pending before the high court.

“We’re following it up,” Fadullon said. “Because matters like that will be taken up by the Supreme Court and banc. So we did file that prior to or simultaneously with the filing of the information sa husgado. And it is necessary that we first file it in the right jurisdiction.”