CA junks Cassandra Ong petition to void trafficking charge

CASSANDRA ONG FACES SENATORS: Cassandra Li Ong made her first appearance at a public hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations, and Gender Equality on the alleged illegal activities of Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators in Pampanga and Tarlac on September 17, 2024.

MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed the petition filed by Cassandra Li Ong challenging the resolution indicting her for qualified human trafficking over her alleged involvement in the illegal activities of the now-banned Philippine offshore gaming operator (Pogo) hub Lucky South 99 Corp. in Porac, Pampanga.

In a seven-page resolution dated June 25, the CA’s 13th Division said it was not convinced by Ong’s arguments justifying her immediate resort to the appellate court without first appealing the indictment before the Department of Justice (DOJ).

“Petitioner’s belief that reconsideration and appeal would have been futile in this case is speculative and conjectural. Immediate resort to this court was unjustified and this court has no other duty but to dismiss the petition,” the CA said in the ruling penned by Associate Justice Pablito Perez.

Ong filed the petition for certiorari on May 13, seeking to void the prosecutor general’s resolution dated April 7 that indicted her, former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, and more than 40 other individuals for qualified human trafficking.

READ: Another coaccused in trafficking case with Roque, Ong falls in Pampanga

The case stemmed from a complaint-affidavit filed on September 10, 2024, before the Department of Justice. The complaint was submitted by 10 Chinese nationals, together with the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group and the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission. It charges the respondents with various offenses under Republic Act No. 9208, or the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2022, as amended.

Ong claimed she was denied due process when the DOJ panel of prosecutors resolved to indict her for a crime that was not charged in the complaint-affidavit.

She said the investigation data form annexed to the complaint did not mention a violation under Section 4(l) of R.A. No. 9208.

For this reason, she said her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her had been violated because she was not given an opportunity during the preliminary investigation to defend against a charge that she committed the crime defined in that provision.

In elevating the case before the CA, Ong admitted that she did not file a motion for reconsideration after Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla, in his public statements, expressed trust and confidence in the judgment of the prosecutors who handled the case.

But the CA, citing Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, said the right to be informed of the nature and cause of a criminal accusation “is one that belongs to an accused who has already been indicted after a finding of probable cause upon completion of the preliminary investigation and who has already been called to stand trial for a crime that has been committed.”

“Hence, the sufficiency of an information may be assailed after the information is filed in court, not before,” the CA said.

“In not availing of a motion for reconsideration and an available appeal, petitioner deprived [Prosecutor General] Anthony Fadullon and the [Secretary of Justice] of the opportunity to review the findings of their respective subordinates and to correct any errors that have been committed by them,” it added. /mcm