DOJ seeks rearrest of 6 suspects in 'missing sabungeros' case
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f6d8e/f6d8ea5d6cef532dcf0d85ead3496bec8fafd745" alt="DOJ seeks rearrest of 6 suspects in 'missing sabungeros' case"
MANILA, Philippines — Prosecutors from the Department of Justice (DOJ) have asked the Manila Regional Trial Court to order the rearrest of six suspects accused in the 2022 abduction of the "missing sabungeros," or cockfighting enthusiasts.
This was confirmed by Prosecutor General Anthony Fadullon in a message to Philstar.com. The suspects, all security personnel of the Manila Arena, were previously allowed to post bail amounting to ?3 million each in December 2023 and February 2024.
The plea for rearrest follows a December 20, 2024 decision by the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC's earlier ruling granting bail. Fadullon said prosecutors formally requested the rearrest during a hearing on January 28.
The six individuals sought for rearrest are:
- Julie Patidongan
- Mark Carlo Zabala
- Virgilio Bayog
- Roberto Matillano Jr.
- Gleer Cordilla
- Johnry Consolacion
The case
The case involves the the disappearance of six individuals at the Manila Arena in 2022. These victims were among 34 sabungeros reported missing since 2021.
In its ruling, the appellate court stated that the RTC judge “gravely abused her discretion” by granting bail despite strong evidence implicating the suspects. The CA said there was "strong evidence" indicating that the victims were kidnapped or detained.
“The fact that after the victims were made to board the van, they could no longer be traced and found even by police authorities, are strong pieces of factual evidence that show that the victims were detained or kidnapped,” the CA ruling read.
The appellate court also dismissed claims that a witness’s retraction undermined their testimony. It noted that the retraction was likely due to stress and pressure while under police witness protection.
The CA added: “If indeed his earlier statements were not true, he could have simply denied them in open court when asked by the prosecution and the defense.”
“Instead, he reaffirmed his earlier statements to the investigating officers and even supplanted and provided the trial court with more details regarding the crime,” it added.
- Latest
- Trending