Change of Venue in the Sabungeros Cases

News hook: By a resolution dated February 5, 2026, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of three criminal cases for kidnapping with homicide and kidnapping and serious illegal detention — involving Charlie "Atong" Ang and others in the disappearance of cockfighting enthusiasts — from the Regional Trial Courts of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, San Pablo City, Laguna, and Lipa City, Batangas to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The transfer was granted on motion of the panel of prosecutors, citing security concerns and the sensitive nature of the cases. Arrest warrants issued in January 2026, bail was not recommended, and while co-accused have been arrested, Ang remains at large.

Legal question

Who has the power to move a criminal case from one province to another, and can a trial proceed when the principal accused has never been arrested?

Applicable laws and rules

1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5(4) — the Supreme Court may order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 14(2) — rights of the accused, including trial in absentia after arraignment
Rules of Court, Rule 110, Section 15 — venue of criminal actions; the action is instituted and tried where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred
Revised Penal Code, Article 267 — kidnapping and serious illegal detention, and the special complex crime where the victim is killed
Rules of Court, Rule 114 — bail; offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua where evidence of guilt is strong
Republic Act No. 6981 — Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act
Rules of Court, Rule 119, Section 17 — discharge of an accused to be a state witness
Presidential Decree No. 1829 — obstruction of justice, including harboring or concealing a person sought for an offense

Why this matters

Venue in criminal cases is not a matter of convenience. The general rule ties the case to the place where the crime happened, and it is jurisdictional in effect — filing in the wrong place is fatal.

That rule presumes a court that can safely and impartially try the case. Where it cannot — because witnesses are being intimidated, because local influence is overwhelming, or because the security of participants cannot be guaranteed — the rule protects nobody.

The Constitution therefore gives exactly one body the power to override it, and the sabungeros transfer is a clear illustration of when that power is used. The case also raises the harder question of what a court can do about an accused who simply does not appear.

The general rule on venue

Under Rule 110, Section 15 of the Rules of Court, a criminal action is instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of its essential ingredients occurred. In criminal cases venue is more than a procedural preference — it is an element of jurisdiction, so a court in the wrong place has no authority to try the case at all.

That is why the sabungeros cases were originally filed in Sta. Cruz and San Pablo City in Laguna and in Lipa City in Batangas: the alleged abductions and the disposal of remains were tied to those places.

The Supreme Court's power to move a case

Article VIII, Section 5(4) of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to "order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice."

Three features of this power are worth noting. It belongs to the Supreme Court alone — no trial court, no Court of Appeals, and no executive official may transfer a criminal case across territorial jurisdictions. The standard is avoidance of a miscarriage of justice, which the Court has applied to threats to the safety of parties, counsel, witnesses, and judges, to overwhelming local influence by a party, and to conditions making an impartial trial impossible. And it is exercised administratively, on petition or motion, without requiring a full adversarial proceeding — which is what makes it usable quickly.

The power has a long history in high-profile Philippine cases, and it exists precisely because the ordinary venue rule can, in specific circumstances, become the mechanism by which justice fails.

What was transferred, and why

The Supreme Court resolution of February 5, 2026 covered three criminal cases for kidnapping with homicide and kidnapping and serious illegal detention, moving them from the RTCs of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, San Pablo City, Laguna, and Lipa City, Batangas to the RTC of Quezon City. The DOJ confirmed the transfer in June 2026.

The transfer was granted on motion of the panel of prosecutors, citing security concerns and the sensitive nature of the cases. That is the classic ground. Consolidating three cases in one court in a different region also serves the practical purposes of coherence and of reducing the burden on witnesses who would otherwise have to travel to three separate venues.

The charge: kidnapping with homicide

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code punishes kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Where the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, the law creates a special complex crime — kidnapping with homicide — treated as a single indivisible offense carrying the maximum penalty, now reclusion perpetua in light of the prohibition on the death penalty.

Because the penalty is reclusion perpetua, bail is not a matter of right. The warrants in these cases carried no recommended bail, and an accused seeking release must petition for bail and go through a hearing at which the prosecution bears the burden of showing that the evidence of guilt is strong.

When the accused does not appear

Co-accused have been arrested; Charlie "Atong" Ang remains at large, and the DOJ has said the case will proceed regardless. What can a court actually do?

Trial in absentia is possible, but only after arraignment. Article III, Section 14(2) of the Constitution allows trial to proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided he has been arraigned, has been duly notified of the trial, and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. Arraignment requires the personal presence of the accused, so an accused who has never been arrested cannot be tried in absentia. The case as to him is typically archived pending arrest, while the trial proceeds against those in custody.
Severance is the practical answer. The prosecution moves forward against the arrested accused, and the evidence developed in that trial is available if the fugitive is later brought in — though he will be entitled to his own trial.
Flight has evidentiary weight. Unexplained flight has long been treated in Philippine jurisprudence as a circumstance from which guilt may be inferred, though it is never sufficient on its own.
Helping a fugitive is a separate crime. Under Presidential Decree No. 1829, harboring or concealing a person known to be sought for an offense, or otherwise obstructing the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders, is punishable — and unlike the accessories provisions of the Revised Penal Code, PD 1829 contains no exemption for relatives.

Witnesses: the reason venue mattered

The investigation into the 2021 disappearances was revived in 2025 after revelations by whistleblower Julie "Dondon" Patidongan, who alleged the sabungeros were abducted, killed, and dumped in Taal Lake by a group of policemen, allegedly on Ang's direction. Those remain allegations that no court has ruled on.

A case built on insider testimony is a case that depends entirely on keeping witnesses alive and willing. Two mechanisms operate here. RA 6981, the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act, administered by the DOJ, provides security, relocation, housing, subsistence, medical benefits, and immunity from criminal prosecution for the offense in which the witness's testimony is given, for witnesses who meet its conditions. Separately, under Rule 119, Section 17, the court may discharge an accused to be a state witness where there is absolute necessity for the testimony, no other direct evidence is available, the testimony can be substantially corroborated in material points, the accused does not appear to be the most guilty, and the accused has not been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude.

The security-based venue transfer is best understood as part of the same effort: moving the trial away from the area where the alleged network operates is a witness-protection measure as much as a procedural one.

What individuals should know

If you are a witness in a case where you fear for your safety, the Witness Protection Program is applied for through the Department of Justice, and admission depends on the gravity of the offense, the importance of the testimony, and the existence of a threat. Do not wait until after you have testified. If you are a party and the danger extends to the conduct of the trial itself, a petition to the Supreme Court for a change of venue under Article VIII, Section 5(4) is available and is the only route to move a case across jurisdictions.

If you are the relative of a missing person, the criminal complaint is not your only remedy. A petition for a writ of amparo under A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC addresses threats to life, liberty, and security and enforced disappearance, carries no docket fees, requires a verified return within five working days, forbids a general denial, and provides interim reliefs including inspection and production orders that can compel disclosure of records. Where the disappearance is attributable to State agents, RA 10353, the Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act, supplies a specific criminal charge.

Finally, keep the presumption of innocence in view. Arrest warrants, a venue transfer, and a no-bail recommendation are all products of a probable cause assessment, not of a finding of guilt. The whistleblower's account is testimony that has yet to be tested in court, and Ang has not been arrested, arraigned, or tried.

Ask PHLaw.AI

Try: "I am a witness in a criminal case and I am being threatened. How do I apply for the Witness Protection Program, and can the trial be moved to another province?"

Ask about this topic

The Missing Sabungeros Cases Moved to Quezon City. Who Can Order That?