People v. Ada

Opinion

Fr·l·tED E15D 1 CLERK OF ·COURT OFCOUR? 2 202~ AUG 29 202||AUG ll: 22 PM ~: 29 PH 3 SUPERiORiCQUR'§` SUPERIOR ·COURT 4 OFGUM./f GUAM ~ 5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 7

8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, CRIMINAL CRIMINALCASE CASENO. NO.CF0520-24 CF0520-24 9 vs. 10 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 PEDRO ADA II, 12 12 Defendant. 13 13

14 14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez for the the limited limited purpose of addressing 16 16 the People the People of of Guam's Guarn's ("the ("the Government") Government") Statement Statement of Objection 77 GCA of Objection and Motion 6107 and GCA §§ 6107 Motion to to 17 17 Disqualify filed July 29, 2024. 18 18 BACKGROUND 19 19 On July 25, 2024, Defendant Pedro Ada II ("Defendant") was charged with: (1) Theft of 20 20 a Motor Vehicle Vehicle (As a Second Degree Felony); Felony), (2) Theft of Property (As (As aa Third Third Degree Degree Felony); Felony), 21 (3) Theft of of Property Property (As aa Misdemeanor) Misdemeanor) .- - Two Two Counts, Counts; (4) Unauthorized Unauthorized Use of a Motor Motor 22 Misdemeanor).'1 (Magistrate's Vehicle (As a Misdemeanor). (Magistrate's Comal., Compl., Jul. Jul. 25, 25, 2024). 23 On July 26, 2024, this matter was assigned to Judge Alberto E. E. Tolentino. Tolentino. See See Notice of 24 Judge Assignment, Jul 26, 2024. 25

26 26

27 11 Defendant Defendantwas was subsequently subsequently indicted for the same same charges chargesononAugust August1,l, 2024. 2024. See Indictment, Indictment, Aug. Aug. 1, 2024. On 1, 2024. August 8, 2024, 2024,at atArraignment, Arraignment,Defendant Defendantentered enteredaaplea pleaofnot of notguilty guiltyand andwaived waivedhis hisright righttotoaaspeedy speedytrial. trial.(Minute (Minute 28 Entry, Aug. 8, 2024). 2024).

People People v. v. Ada Case No. CF0520-24 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 1 of8 of 1 On On July 29, 2024, July 29, 2024, the the Government Governmentfiled tiled aa Statement Statementof of Objection Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and and 2 Motion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify ("Objection"), ("Objection"), moving movingfor forJudge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's recusal recusal in this this matter. matter. The

3 Government moves for Government moves for Judge Tolentino's recusal Judge Tolentino's pursuantoto77G.C.A. recusal pursuant G.C.A.§§ 6105(a) 6l05(a) because of because of 4 Judge Tolentino's Judge Tolentino's familial familial relationship with Attorney relationship with Attorney General General Douglas Douglas B. Molyan. 2 B. Molyan.2 See See 5 generally, generally, Objection, Objection, Jul. Jul. 29, 2024. 6 On July July 31, 3 l,2024, 2024,Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentinofiled filedhis hisAnswer Answer to to Statement Statementof ofObjection, Objection, challenging challenging

7 the timeliness of the of the the objection objection and and denying denying that that his his recusal recusal is is appropriate appropriate in in this this matter. matter. See See 8 generally, Answer, Jul. generally, Answer, Jul. 31, 2024. 2024. 9 On On July 3 l, 2024, July 31, 2024, pursuant pursuanttoto77G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 6107, 6107, the the question question of of whether whether Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentino

10 10 should be be disqualified from continuing continuing to preside preside over over this this mater mater came before before this this recusal recusal court. 11 11 See Notice Notice of ofAssignment AssignmentofofRecusal Recusal Judge, Judge,Jul. Jul. 31, 31, 2024. 12 12 On August 13, 2024, the 13, 2024, the Government Governmentfiled filed a Response Responseto to Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's Answer Answer to

13 13 Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §6107 and Motion §6107 and Motion to to Disqualify. Disqualify.

14 14 DISCUSSION

15 15 Title Title 77 G.C.A. G.C.A.section section6105 6105sets setsforth forththe thesubstantive substantivegrounds grounds under under which which aa judge judge must must 16 be disqualified. Where Whereaajudge judgefails failstotodisqualify disqualifyhim himor orherself, herself,any anyparty party to to that that proceeding may 17 move move to to disqualify disqualify the the judge judge pursuant to 77 G.C.A. pursuant to G.C.A. §§ 6107. 6107. 18 A. Statement Statement of of Objection 19 19 The Government moves to disqualify Government moves disqualify Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino in in this this matter matter based based on the the 20 20 following following grounds: grounds: 21 • • That from 2014 2014 to to 2022, 2022, Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino disqualified disqualified himself himself from from cases cases involving involving Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan as as aa private private attorney attorney on on the the basis of the the 22 22 familial relationship relationship that that exists between between them, them; 23 23 • • That Judge That Judge Tolentino Tolentino stated stated that that disqualification disqualification was was necessary necessary because because 24 24 Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylanisis the the father father of ofhis his step step children; 25

26 2 Attached to the Government's Government's Statement Statementof ofObjection Objectionare are several several exhibits, exhibits, including a Decision and Order Order issued 27 by Judge Iriarte Iriarte on June 4, 2024 in People v.v. Taiting7'ong, Taitingfong, Criminal Case No.No. CF0024-24, CF0024-24, andand several several Form Form One One -- Disqualification 77 GCA Disqualification GCA §§ 6106 6106 memorandums memorandums issuedissued by by Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino refusing recusing himself himself from from cases cases involving involving 28 Attorney General Moylan Moylan when when he he was was in in private practice based on section 6105(a) 6l05(a) up up until until October 27, 2022.

People vv. Ada People Case No. CF0520-24 CF0520-24 Decision and Decision and Order

Page 2 of8 Page of • • JudgeTolentino's That Judge Tolentino's last Form One-Disqualification One-Disqualiiication in in this regard regard was was filed filed 1 on October October 27, 2022; 2022, 2 • • the basis That the basisfor for Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's prior prior disqualifications disqualifications hasn't hasn't changed, changed; 3 • • That aa reasonable reasonable person person would would presume presume that that Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's personal personal 4 relationship with Attorney relationship with Attorney General General Moylan Moylan and and his prior years disqualifying 5 himself from any any matters involving AG matters involving AG Moylan Moylanwould wouldraise raise aareasonable reasonable question about his impartiality about his impartiality and necessitate necessitatehis hisdisqualification; disqualification, 6 • • That Judge Tolentino has Judge Tolentino has been disqualified from presiding presiding over over other other cases cases 7 based on the the above facts, facts; and and 8 • • ThatSan San Agustin v.v. v. v. Superior Ct. of ofGuam, Guam, 2024 Guam 2, required the the Clerk 9 of Court to refrain from assigning cases to Judge Tolentino of Court to refrain from assigning cases to Judge Tolentino once he he was was disqualified. 10 10 See Objection, Objection, Jul. Jul. 29, 2024. 11 II In In his answer, JudgeTolentino answer, Judge Tolentino sets sets forth forth under underpenalty penaltyof ofperjury perjurythe thefollowing following relevant 12 12 facts:: 13 13

6. That at Mr. Moylan's Moylan'srequest, request,aameeting meetingbetween betweenhim himand andthe the undersigned, undersigned, the 14 14 undersigned's chamberstaff, undersigned's chamber staff, the the Administrator Administratorof of the the Courts, Courts, and andMr. Mr. Moylan's Moylan's 15 15 transition chairperson, chairperson,Mr. Mr. Wilfred Wilfred Afiague, Aflague,occurred occurredin inDecember December2022 2022;, 16 7. 7. That That at at this this meeting, meeting, Mr. Mr. Moylan Moylanassured assured me me and and the the other other members members in in attendance thathe attendance that heperceived perceivedno noconflict conflict in election as in his election as the Attorney General General andand 17 17 the prosecution of the prosecution of criminal cases before the undersigned. undersigned. It It was was agreed agreed that that the the 18 18 circumstances underlyingmy circumstances underlying my recusal recusal in in matters mattersthat thatMr. Mr.Moylan Moylan was was aa lawyer no 19 19 longer existed, longer to wit: existed, to wit:that thatduring duringmy myterm termas asthe the Magistrate MagistrateJudge Judge and and as as aa Judge Judge I had routinely routinely recused reused myself myselffrom fromall allmatters matters where where Mr. Mr. Moylan Moylanwaswas the the attorney attorney 20 20 of ofaa party party before before meme on onthe the basis basis that that he was the the father father of of my minor minor step-children step-children 21 and that that the the minor minor step-children step-children were were members members of and and resided inin the th~ household household maintained maintained by by me me and and my my wife wife and and that that as of ofeven even date, date, both both step-children step-children have 22 now reached majority majorityand and adulthood adulthood andhavebeen and residing at their own own residences 23 in in Guam and and in in the the U.S. U.S. Mainland; Mainland,

24 8. 8. That ThatMr. Mr.Moylan Moylanever nevermade madean anappearance appearance as as aa lawyer lawyer in in this this case. 25 9. 9. That neither Mr. Moylan nor the neither Mr. the Office Office of ofthe the Attorney Attorney General General had had ever ever challenged or or objected objected to to me me presiding presidingover overthis thiscase caseuntil untilthe the instant instant Statement of Statement of 26 26 Objection sectionand andMotion MotiontotoDisqualify Disqualify filed filed herein. 27 * * * *** 28

People v. v. Ada Case No. CF0520-24 Decision Decision and and Order

Page Page 33of8 off 14. 14. That That my wife wife Doris Doris L.G. L.G. Tolentino Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan werewere l divorced on on June June 13, 13, 1997, andthat 1997, and thatthere therewere weretwo two minor minor children children at at the the time time of of 2 the dissolutionof the dissolution of marriage, manage, toto wit: wit: Brandon Brandon (born (born 1990) 1990) and Angela Angela (born (born 1992), 1992); 3 15. 15. That my wife wife and and II have have been been together together since 2001 and s_ince 2001 andthat thatwe wewere weremarried named 4 civilly civillyin in2005 2005 and and eventually eventually in in the the Roman Roman Catholic Catholic Church Church in in December December 2023, 2023;

5 16. have five children 16. That we have children inclusive of ofBrandon Brandon and Angela, and Angela; 17. since my 17. That since my wife wife and I have have been beentogether togetherII have havenever neverobserved observedMr.Mr. Moylan Moylan 6 and my my wife wife involved involvedin inany anysense sense in in co-parenting co-parenting the the children children of oftheir their marriage marriage asas 7 the children have been raised and provided with and provided with protection protection and and care to ensure ensure their 8 healthy development into healthy development into adulthood, primarilyby adulthood, primarily by my my wife wife and and me, me, and and that that atat present they they are are in fact adults able to adults able to conduct conduct and andmake maketheir theirown owndecisions decisionsininlife; life; 9 18. 18. That That based based upon the the foregoing foregoing averments, averments, the the fact fact that that Attorney Attorney General General 10 10 Moylan Moylan is is the the biological biologicalfather fatherof ofthe theundersigned's undersigned's stepchildren stepchildren provides provides no no basis basis 11 for for disqualification disqualification under under 77 GCA GCA §§6105(b) 6105(b)or orthat that the the undersigned's undersigned's impartiality impartiality might be reasonably reasonably questioned questioned as as required required under under subsection (a).. 12 12 (Answer (Answerat at 3-4, 3-4, Jul. Jul. 31, 2024). 13 13 In In response, the Government asserts response, the that its asserts that its Statement Statementof of Objection was timely timely and and that that 14 14 JudgeTolentino Judge Tolentino is is disqualified disqualified "per "per se." se." See See generally, Resp., Aug. Aug. 13, 13, 2024. 2024. 15 15 B. Timeliness Timeliness of of Objection 16 16 The first issue before the Court is whether the Court whetherthe theGovernment's Govemrnent'sObjection Objectionwas wastimely timely filed, filed, 17 17 as Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino challenges challenges the the timeliness timelinessofofthe theGovernment's Government'sObj section. (Answer Objection. atat (Answer ,r,i 9- 111] 18 18 13). 13). The TheGovernment Governmentargues arguesits itsobjection objectionisis timely timelybecause because theSan San Agustin Agustin opinion opinion issued issued July 19 19 18, "provided additional 18, 2024 "provided additional grounds grounds on which to require disqualification, namely namely the the Supreme ~upreme 20 20 Court's explanation and use explanation and use of of its supervisory supervisory authority over the authority over the Superior Court of Guam's Superior Court Guam's 21 assignment of matters assignment of mattersto to disqualified disqualifiedjudges" judges" and and that thatititfiled filed the the "Statement "Statement of of Objection Objection less 22 than two weeks after the than two the case case was was initiated and and before before any any hearing hearing on on any any issue issueof of fact fact was was ever 23 23 set to be be heard heardby byJudge JudgeTolentino." Tolentino." (Resp. at 3). 24 Pursuant to section 6107: Pursuant to 6107: 25 The statement of a party objecting to statement of to the the Justice Justice or Judge the ground Judge on the ground of of his or 26 26 her disqualification disqualification shall shall be be presented presented at the earliest practicable opportunity after 27 27 his or her her appearance and discovery appearance and discovery of the the facts facts constituting the ground constituting the ground of the the disqualificatiomand in Justice's or Judge's disqualification,.and in any event before the commencement of of 28

People People v. Ada Ada Case No. CF0520-24 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 4 of8 Page the hearing of the hearing of any issue of fact fact in in the the action action or or proceeding proceeding before beforesuch such Justice Justice or 1 Judge. Judge. 2 7 7 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§6107. 6107. "The "Therule rulethat thataarequest requestfor fordisqualification disqualificationshould shouldbe besubmitted submitted prior prior to to any any 3 hearing in matterbefore in the matter before the challenged challenged judge judge rests rests on on the principle principle that a party party may may not gamble gamble 4 on a favorable decision. Thus, Thus, aa statement of objection statement of objection is normally timely ififititis is submitted submitted prior 5 to any any hearing hearing before the challenged judge in in the the matter." matter." Van Van Dox Dax v. v. Superior Superior Cr. Ct. of ofGuam, Guam, 6 2008 Guam ,r 46 (internal Guam 7 1] (internal quotation quotation marks marks and and citation omitted). "[A] "[A]statement statement may be 7 untimely untimely if aa party party waits waits until until the the eve eve of oftrial trialtotorequest request disqualification disqualification based based on on information information 8 made known knownmonths monthsearlier." earlier."Id. Id (citing (citing People People v. v. Pariah, Panah, 107 790, 824 107 P.3d 790, 824(Cal. (Cal. 2005)). 9 Here, the Government's Statement of Objection was filed Statement of filed prior prior to to the the commencement of of 10 the hearingof the hearing of any any issue issueof of fact in the the action action or or proceeding proceedingbefore before Judge JudgeTolentino. Tolentino. The The case case was 11 assigned to Judge Tolentino on Judge Tolentino on July 26, 2024, 2024, and andthe theGovernment's Government's Statement Statementof of Objection Objection was 12 12 filed filed three three days days later later on on July 29, 2024. July 29, 2024. According Accordingtotothe theCourt's Court'scase casemanagement management system, system, at at the 13 time of offiling filingofofthe theObjection, Objection,no nohearings hearingshad hadbeen beencalendared calendared or or heard before Judge Tolentino Judge Tolentino 14 14 in in the instant matter. However, instant matter. However, the the Court Court does does not not find findthat that the the timeliness timeliness analysis analysis ends ends there. there. 15 15 The facts facts that that form the basis basis of the the Statement of Objection are Statement of are not newly discovered discovered to the the 16 Government and Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentino has has presided presided over over criminal criminal matters matters involving involving the the Government Government 17 since Attorney General Moylan took General Moylan took office officeininJanuary 2023. See January 2023. See Answer ,r 44 ("I Answer 'jj ("I _... .. have have been been a 18 18 Judge Judge of the Superior Court of of Guam Guam since since September September 2021, and that thatmy my docket docket consists consists mostly mostly 19 19 of ofcriminal criminal matters matters brought by by the the People People of Guam through throughthe theOffice Office of of the the Attorney General."). 20 It was not until until over over a year later in May 2024 that that the theGovernment Governmentfirst firstmoved moved to to disqualify Judge Judge 21 Tolentino. See See People Peoplev.v.Y/Janez, Ybanez, et al. (CF0447-23) (CF0447-23)Dec. Dec.&&Order Orderatat5,5,Jun. Jun. 12, 12, 2024 (noting the 22 Statement ofObjection Statement of Objectionand andMotion MotiontotoDisqualify Disqualifywas wasfiled filedon onMay May 1, I, 2024). 2024). The The Government Government 23 has since moved to disqualify has since disqualify Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino in in aa number number of ofcriminal cases, 3 but criminal cases,3 but not not all all of his his 24 24

25 3 This This Court, Court, for for example, example, has has been been assigned as recusal assigned as judgefor recusaljudge for the the instant instant matter matter (CF0520-24 (CF0520-24), ), People People v. Buchun, Buchun, (CF0458-24), People v. v. Rikat at(CM0193-24), (CM0193-24), People People v.v.Romolor Romolor (CF0391-24), (CF039l-24), People People v. Timothy (CM0229-24), (CM0229-24), and 26 People People v. Quichoeho Quichocho (CM0249-24), (CM0249-24); People v. v. Doran Doran (CF0551-24). The TheStatement Statement ofofObjection Objection filed filedinineach each case case is substantially the same. substantially the same. Judge Tolentino's Answer also refers Judge Tolentino's refers to to objections objections being being filed filed in People People v. Mantanona 27 (CM0203-24), (CM0203-24); People v. Babita Babauta (CF0443-24), (CF0443-24);People Peoplev. v.Runlet Enlet (CM0322-22), (CM0322-22); People People v.v. Sarges Sanres (CF046l-24), (CF0461-24); 28 People v. Rabago (CF0423-24), (CF0423-24); and People v. Alipich v. Alipich (CF0449-24). (Answer ,r (Answer 1124).

People Peopl v. Ada e v. Case No. CF0520-24 No. CF0520-24 Decision and Decision and Order

Page Page 55of8 off 1 criminal docket. 4 Therefore, criminal docket.4 Therefore,while whilethe thetimeliness timelinessofofan anobi section would objection would normally normally be case specific,

2 the circumstances of the the objections being filed in some but not all cases before before Judge Tolentino,

3 despite the basis of all objections objections being substantially the same, require the Court to to view view them them in

4 of his entire criminal docket, as all criminal matters are brought light of brought by the the Office of the the Attorney Attorney

5 General on behalf General on behalf of the People of the of Guam. People of Guam. "7 "7 GCA GCA §§ 6105 is not 6105 is not intended intended to to 'bestow 'bestow veto veto power power

6 over judges or to to be be used used as as aa judge judge shopping shopping device."' 2, ti device."' San Agustin, 2024 Guam 2, , 24 (citing 77 Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2,1180). People v. Carnaddu, 80). The The Court Court further notes that while San Agustin was not 8 issued until July 18, 2024, 2024, the the Supreme Supreme Court of of Guam's "explanation and Guam's "explanation and use of of its supervisory 9 authority over the authority the Superior Court Court of of Guam's assignment assignment of of matters matters to disqualified disqualified judges," as 10 10 relied on by the Government, Government, see Resp. at see Resp. at 3, 3, was was specifically specifically in regard to the Superior Court's 11 11 assignment of assignment matters. 5 See San Agustin, 2024 Guam 22 1120 of judicial recusal matters.5 , 20 (Once (Once disqualified,

12 12 can take no aaction-even a judge ca whena cting ction-even when actinginina alimited limitedcacapacity pa city a as s a ar ecusa recusal judge."). l judge.

13 13 Therefore, the the Government cannot rely on the the opinion opinion recently recently being being published published as as aa basis basis for a 14 14 timeliness argument. 15 15 law does "Guam law does not not speak speak explicitly explicitly of of waiver, waiver, but but does require require that 'all parties parties agree.' 16 16 Rather than interpreting 'agree' to mean 'agree' to meanthat that the the parties must expressly agree to waive the judge's judge's

17 17 disqualification, we disqualification, we held held that remaining remaining silent constitutes constitutes waiver, waiver, at at least least in in the the context context of 7

18 18 G.C.A. §§ 6105(a), G.C.A. 'to avoid 6l05(a), 'to avoid the the possibility possibility of ofparties parties lying lying in in wait, wait, raising raising the the recusal issue only recusal issue only

19 19 after learning learning the the court's court's ruling ruling on on the v. Win, the merits."' People v. Guam 17 Wia, 2020 Guam 17 'll , 28 (internal (internal 20 20 alterations and citations alterations and In the omitted). In citations omitted). the context context of of 77 G.C.A. G.C.A. §§ 6105(b), 6l05(b), the the Supreme Supreme Court Court of of 21 Guam adopted the "silence-as-wavier" basis. Id. at "silence-as-wavier" rule on a case-by-case basis. at, 30. The "silence-as- 1130.

22 waiver" includes failure to object based on information previously known known to to the parties parties through 23 separate litigation. Id. atat, separate litigation. (finding that the silence-as-waiver rule 1127 (finding rule rendered rendered the the defendant's

24 24

25 4 25 Judge Tolentino asserts Judge asserts in in his his Answer that that "if there truly "if there truly is is concern concern with with the the undersigned's undersigned's impartiality impartiality or appearance of partiality then then by by movant's logic the movant's logic the disqualification disqualification should should have have extended extended to to the undersigned's entire 26 26 of pending and post-adjudication further criminal docket of furtherproceedings." ,i (Answer1134). proceedings." (Answer

27 5 The Supreme exercised its "supervisory authority to Supreme Court exercised to clarify clarifythe theproper proper procedures procedures (1) (1) when when aa party party seeks seeks to challenge a recusal recusaljudge judge for for cause, cause,(2) (2)for for service service of of aawrit writ petition, petition, and (3) (3) for service of a statement statement of of objection objection 28 on a judge judge or or justice." Agustin, 2024 Guam 2 ,i justice." San Agustin, 1[54. 54.

People v. Ada Case No. Case No. CF0520-24 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 6 of8 of 1 objection waived and untimely because because the defendant aware of the disqualification issue through 2 involvement in his counsel's involvement in other other criminal cases). 3 The Government does not dispute in its Response (nor does it appear appear to address at all) 4 statement that he and Attorney General Moylan met in Judge Tolentino's statement in December December 2022 with 5 court administration and staff staff whereby "[i]t was agreed that the circumstances underlying [Judge

6 Tolentino's] recusal in matters matters that that Mr. Mr. Moylan Moylan was was aa lawyer lawyer no no longer longer existed." (Answer ,r17). existed." (Answer

7 Moylan appears Thus, Attorney General Moylan appears to have waived any conflict on behalf behalf of the Government

8 prior to the start of his his term term in in January January 2023. time, the Court is unaware of any objection 2023. At this time,

9 set forth by the Government to Judge Tolentino Tolentino presiding over any criminal matter matter prior to People 10 10 v. Ybanez, 2024. 6 The Ybanez, CF0447-23, on May l,1, 2024.6 The Government Government therefore therefore did did not move to disqualify 111 Judge Tolentino Tolentino in any criminal matter for sixteen months after Attorney General Moylan took

12 12 (January 2023 office (January 2023 to to April April 2024). The Government 2024). The Government has not presented any newly discovered discovered 13 13 facts or change in circumstances relating to the familial familial relationship between Judge Tolentino and

14 14 Attorney General Moylan that would render Attorney Attorney General General Moylan's December 2022 waiver Moylan's December

15 15 of any conflict of conflict moot. The The Court Court notes notes that that the the issue issue of of Judge Tolentino's competency competency was first 16 16 addressed in People v. v. Aguon, CM0145-21 in Spring 2024, Aguon, CMOl45-21 2024; yet it was through a motion filed by 17 17 defendant, not the Government, and in the context of a Motion to Disqualify the the defendant, the Prosecutor Prosecutor 18 18 and not a ruling on a Statement of Objection Obi actiontotoJudge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's competency. competency. See Dec. & Order

19 19 at 4-5, People v. (CM0145-21), Apr. 5, 2024 ("On March 1, v. Aguon (CMOl45-21), 1, 2024, the Court heard new 20 arguments on the Motion to Withdraw arguments Withdraw the the Prosecutor. There, in addition Prosecutor. There, addition to the issue of AAG 21 Olan's alleged OIan's alleged statements, statements, Defendant Defendant asserted asserted there had been an undisclosed undisclosed familial familial relationship

22 Judge Tolentino between Judge Tolentino and and Douglas DouglasMoylan Moylan... "). At ..."). Atthe thetime timeof ofthat that Decision Decision and and Order Order in 23 23 CM0145-21, Judge CMOl45-21, Judge Tolentino Tolentino had had already already recused himselffrom reused himself from the the matter, matter, albeit albeit on on different different 24 24

25 6 The Government Government has has not not shown shown that that itit has objected to Judge Tolentino presiding overover any criminal criminal matter prior to 26 People v. Ybanez. Ybanez. The Court Court acknowledges acknowledges that that on on May May 24, 24, 2024 2024 (twenty-three (twenty-three days days after after the filing of of an objection Ybanez), the Government orally agreed with Defendant Taitingfong in Ybanez), Taitingfong in CF0024-24 that Judge TolentinoTolentino was 27 disqualified from presiding over her her case in light of the familial familial relationship relationship between between Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney Moylan. See People v. General Moylan. v. Taitingfong (CF0024-24) Dec. & Order at 44 fn. fn. 1, l, Jun. 4, 2024. ItIt does 4, 2024. does not not appear 28 that the Government Government itself itself also filed an Objection to Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino presiding presiding in that matter. See id in that id.

People People v. v. Ada Case No. CF0520-24 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 7 of8 of 1 grounds. grounds. See See idid.atat2.2.InInlight lightofofthe theforegoing, foregoing, the the Court Court finds that the Government's Governnlent's silence for 2 over a year, despite being aware Of the facts of the facts forming forming the the basis basis of the the disqualification, disqualification, amounts to 3 a waiver of of any any objection objection to to Judge Judge Tolentino presiding over cases cases involving the Office of the 4 Attorney General based Attorney General based on the the familial familial relationship relationship between between Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney 5 General Moylan. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, the Court hereby DENIES DENIES the Government's Statement Statement of of 8 Obi sectionand Objection andMotion MotiontotoDisqualify. Disqualify. The Court returns returns the matter to to Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino for further 9 disposition. 10 10 1» "-' ofof August, 2024. 11 11 this W IT IS SO ORDERED this if day 2024.

12 12

14 HONORABLE VERNON P. p. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 SERVICE VIA SERVICE VIAE-MAIL E-MAIL 20 20 acknowledge that I acknowledge that an origin;)mlwas orig wasemailed emailedto: to: 21 /fir, pre 6' I f/DIZ' Date'8-24]-2 Date/ ·7-'l'(fime '(Y"' `ime'i'f/ 'I . 22 I/ A v- .G,l/4 411/ a f é f ""'5' Depufy De Oerk,m,Superior ut Ge Superi CourtoolfGu Guam 23

People v. Ada Case Case No. No. CF0520-24 CF0520-24 Decision and Decision and Order

Page 88 of8 off