THE Justice Department’s panel of prosecutors has dismissed a kidnapping with serious illegal detention complaint due to a lack of probable cause in relation to the disappearance of a cockfighting aficionado or “sabungero” last April.

The complaint was filed against individuals implicated in the disappearance of Michael Bautista, a cockfighting enthusiast.

According to Michael Bautista’s wife Ma. Concepcion Bautista, his husband was last seen in April 28, 2021.

Ryan Bautista, the victim’s brother, claimed to have identified his missing sibling in a video footage shown to him by an ABS-CBN reporter.

He also alleged that one of the men holding his brother was Julie Patidongan, also known as “Dondon.”

However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed the complaint stating: “While the panel acknowledges the suffering of Michael Bautista’s family due to the uncertainty surrounding his whereabouts for a prolonged period, it does not give significant weight to the denials and allegations of respondent Patidongan. The complainants failed to present sufficient proof establishing probable cause against the respondents.”

The DOJ stressed the importance of proving probable cause during a preliminary investigation to ensure justice and prevent wrongful accusations or convictions.

It also highlighted the challenges faced by investigators in identifying the perpetrators due to limitations in the available evidence.

Specifically, the faces of the individuals in the 12-second video clip were not clearly visible, hindering their identification based on appearance alone.

Acritical witness presumed to have first-hand knowledge of Bautista’s taking was given the opportunity to affirm the statements in his affidavit.

However, the witness failed to appear before the panel and confirm the statements made.

The DOJ explained that the absence weakened the overall evidentiary foundation of the case, making it more difficult to establish a clear understanding of the events.

Considering these circumstances, the DOJ concluded that relying solely on the limited evidence at hand, such as the unclear video footage and the unverified statements of an absent witness, was insufficient to firmly establish the identity of the person responsible for the crime.