DOJ filing qualified human trafficking case vs Guo, others

MANILA, Philippines —  The Department of Justice (DOJ) will file charges of qualified trafficking against dismissed Bamban mayor Alice Guo over her alleged involvement in a Philippine offshore gaming operator (POGhin her town that was raided over illegal activities including torture, forced labor and cyberscams.

According to DOJ Undersecretary Nicholas Ty, state prosecutors found “prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction” against Guo and other respondents.

In particular, Guo is culpable under Section 4(l) of the Expanded Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012, which provides that those who organize an establishment that engages in human trafficking are just as liable.

“The defense of Guo’s legal team and other respondents that they did not recruit or torture victims will not be given weight under our new law,” Ty said in a press briefing.

He reiterated the provision from the trafficking act, saying “once it is found that you are involved in the establishment or organization of a company that is involved in human trafficking, you can be charged with human trafficking.”

Aside from Guo, Ty said they will also file charges against Huang Zhiyang, the so-called “boss of all bosses” of POGOs, Zhang Ruijin and Lin Baoying.

Also included was former Technology and Livelihood Resource Center (TLRC) deputy director general Dennis Cunanan as well as other incorporators.

Ty refused to name other respondents to keep the case “as confidential as possible” due to “flight risk” among respondents while they are not yet included in the immigration lookout bulletin.

The DOJ official said the panel of prosecutors did not give weight to the supposed counter-affidavit of Guo, which her camp had attempted to submit despite the case having already been submitted for resolution.

There are also doubts as to the authenticity of the counter-affidavit as it was sworn before a notary public in August but Guo had allegedly left the Philippines in July.

The physical presence of the affiant is needed for a document to be notarized by a lawyer commissioned by the Supreme Court (SC).

Ty, however, said that a counter-affidavit must be submitted physically by the affiant before a