2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 3
4 nv, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM!t~t3-~' 5 PEOPLE OF GUAM ) ) 6 ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 7 vs. ) Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise ) 8 BRIAN MARK AGUERO, ) ) 9 ) Defendant. ) 10
11 INTRODUCTION 12
13 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on September 12, 2013, on
14 Brian Mark Aguero's ("Defendant") Motion for Civil Compromise. Defendant was represented 15 by Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Gabrielle Rossi appeared on 16 behalf of the People of Guam ("the People"). Following the hearing, the Court took the matter 17 under advisement. Upon review of the evidence, written arguments and legal authorities 18
19 presented by both parties, the Court hereby issues this Decision and Order GRANTING
20 Defendant's motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On January 4, 2013, Defendant was charged with Assault by Mutual Combat (As a Petty 23
24 Misdemeanor) along with Co-Defendant John Steven Aguero. Complaint (Jan. 4, 2013). The
25 allegations set forth in the Declaration states that Brian Mark Aguero and John Steven Aguero
26 are brothers. The two "got into a fight when Brian Aguero accused [John Aguero] of breaking 27 into his house." Id. The Declaration further states that "Brian Aguero approached [John 28
People v. Aguero (CM48-13) Page 1 of5 Decision and Order- Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise Aguero], head-butted him twice and then began poking John Aguero with his finger numerous 1
2 times to his forehead. Brian then threw a few punches, missed, and John Aguero placed Brian
3 Aguero in a headlock. They struggled on the ground and family members broke up the fight." 4
5 Brian Aguero and John Aguero were arraigned on February 20, 2013. Both Defendants 6 waived their right to a speedy trial. Assertion or Waiver of Speedy Trial & Request for Jury of 7
8 Twelve in Felony Case (Feb. 20, 2013). On June 25, 2013, Defendant Brian M. Aguero
9 requested a jury of six persons. Jury Demand (Jun. 25, 2013). On September 6, 2013, 10 Defendant Brian M. Aguero filed a Motion to Dismiss for Civil Compromise. Brian Aguero 11 and John Aguero also field a Declaration under penalty of perjury, acknowledging their 12
satisfaction for their injuries. Civil Compromise (Sep. 6, 20 13). On September 10, 2013, the 13
14 People filed their opposition. The Court heard oral arguments on September 12, 2013.
15 DISCUSSION 16 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the instant Complaint pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.90. 17 See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss for Civil Compromise; Memorandum in Support of Mot. (Sep. 6, 18
19 2013). Defendant argues that "the reasons for dismissal under the civil compromise statute are
20 met here: (1) the civil injury was coextensive with the criminal violation; (2) the circumstances 21 were such that through private settlement the injury to the public was fully vindicated; and (3) 22 the victims' settlement agreement was made voluntarily." Id. at 2. 23
The People oppose Defendant's motion. The People argue that "[c]ivil compromise 24
25 would be appropriate if there was satisfaction for the injuries suffered in this case, yet, there is
26 no indication by Defendant that satisfaction was received. Defendant only indicates that their 27 differences were resolved and they civilly compromised the incident." People's Opp'n Mot. at 28
People v. Aguero (CM48-13) Page 2 of5 Decision and Order Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise 2 (Sep. 10, 2013). The People also contend that "there is no victim in this case" and there can 1
2 be no civil compromise without a named victim." ld. at 3.
3 Misdemeanors may be compromised in accordance with Guam law. Guam's Criminal 4 Procedure provides when misdemeanors may be compromised as follows: 5 (a) When the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense which is 6 not a felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense has a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised as provided by the 7 Section. 8 (b) If the person injured appears before, or files his declaration in, the court in which the 9 criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges that he has received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, on payment of the costs incurred, 10 order the criminal action dismissed. 11 (c) A dismissal under this Section is a bar to another prosecution of the same offense. 12 8 GCA § 80.90 13
Section 80.90 is based on California Penal Code§§ 1377 and 1378. California case law 14
15 is persuasive when there is no compelling reason to deviate from California's interpretation.
16 Zurich Ins. (Guam), Inc. v. Santos, 2007 Guam 23 ~ 7. As such, the legislative purpose behind 17 allowing civil compromise of criminal misdemeanors is not to guarantee a victim maximum 18 compensation for the injury, but to remove from criminal prosecution those offenses for which 19
20 there is a civil remedy available. People v. Stephen, 182 Cal. App.3rd 14, 27 (1986). The
21 rationale for this legislative purpose, as indicated in Stephen, is that the public interest in those 22 cases is best served by requiring the accused to make restitution directly and immediately to the 23 individual victim instead of subjecting the accused to criminal sanctions for the welfare of 24
society in general. Id. 25
26 In People v. lvfoulton, 131 Cal.App.3d Supp. 10 (1982), the Court held that various
27 factors may be taken into consideration by a trial judge in determining whether to dismiss a 28 misdemeanor criminal prosecution under a civil compromise statute. These factors include (1)
People v. Aguero (CM48-13) Page 3 of5 Decision and Order- Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise whether the civil injury was coextensive with the criminal violation; (2) whether the 1
2 circumstances were such that through private settlement the injury to the public was fully
3 vindicated; and (3) whether the victim's settlement agreement was made voluntarily. Id. at 21- 4 23. 5 In the instant case, the Defendant was charged with Assault by Mutual Combat (As a 6
Petty Misdemeanor). As indicated in Moulton, by its very nature, Assault is a crime in which 7
8 the person injured would almost always have a civil action for damages. Id. at 21. Since a civil
9 remedy was readily available at the inception of this criminal case, it may be deduced that the 10 civil injury was coextensive with the criminal violation. 11 In regards to whether the circumstances are such that through private settlement the 12 injury to the public would be fully vindicated, the Moulton court held that the seriousness of the 13
14 injury, as well as the circumstances of the commission of the offense, are taken into
15 consideration in "determining whether a civil satisfaction adequately vindicates the public's 16 interest in enforcing its criminal laws." !d. at 23. In the instant case, the altercation was between 17 the Defendant and his Co-Defendant brother. 18
19 Lastly, in regards to whether the victim's settlement agreement was made voluntarily,
20 this Court recognizes that both co-Defendants and cross victims submitted their Declaration 21 that they have met and resolved their differences and civilly compromised the incident. The 22 Court is not in a position to second guess their Declaration, considering it was submitted under 23 penalty of peljury. Therefore, the Court accepts that the cross victims have voluntarily made 24
25 their Declaration.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 3
4 nv, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM!t~t3-~' 5 PEOPLE OF GUAM ) ) 6 ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 7 vs. ) Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise ) 8 BRIAN MARK AGUERO, ) ) 9 ) Defendant. ) 10
11 INTRODUCTION 12
13 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on September 12, 2013, on
14 Brian Mark Aguero's ("Defendant") Motion for Civil Compromise. Defendant was represented 15 by Attorney Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Gabrielle Rossi appeared on 16 behalf of the People of Guam ("the People"). Following the hearing, the Court took the matter 17 under advisement. Upon review of the evidence, written arguments and legal authorities 18
19 presented by both parties, the Court hereby issues this Decision and Order GRANTING
20 Defendant's motion. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On January 4, 2013, Defendant was charged with Assault by Mutual Combat (As a Petty 23
24 Misdemeanor) along with Co-Defendant John Steven Aguero. Complaint (Jan. 4, 2013). The
25 allegations set forth in the Declaration states that Brian Mark Aguero and John Steven Aguero
26 are brothers. The two "got into a fight when Brian Aguero accused [John Aguero] of breaking 27 into his house." Id. The Declaration further states that "Brian Aguero approached [John 28
People v. Aguero (CM48-13) Page 1 of5 Decision and Order- Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise Aguero], head-butted him twice and then began poking John Aguero with his finger numerous 1
2 times to his forehead. Brian then threw a few punches, missed, and John Aguero placed Brian
3 Aguero in a headlock. They struggled on the ground and family members broke up the fight." 4
5 Brian Aguero and John Aguero were arraigned on February 20, 2013. Both Defendants 6 waived their right to a speedy trial. Assertion or Waiver of Speedy Trial & Request for Jury of 7
8 Twelve in Felony Case (Feb. 20, 2013). On June 25, 2013, Defendant Brian M. Aguero
9 requested a jury of six persons. Jury Demand (Jun. 25, 2013). On September 6, 2013, 10 Defendant Brian M. Aguero filed a Motion to Dismiss for Civil Compromise. Brian Aguero 11 and John Aguero also field a Declaration under penalty of perjury, acknowledging their 12
satisfaction for their injuries. Civil Compromise (Sep. 6, 20 13). On September 10, 2013, the 13
14 People filed their opposition. The Court heard oral arguments on September 12, 2013.
15 DISCUSSION 16 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the instant Complaint pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.90. 17 See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss for Civil Compromise; Memorandum in Support of Mot. (Sep. 6, 18
19 2013). Defendant argues that "the reasons for dismissal under the civil compromise statute are
20 met here: (1) the civil injury was coextensive with the criminal violation; (2) the circumstances 21 were such that through private settlement the injury to the public was fully vindicated; and (3) 22 the victims' settlement agreement was made voluntarily." Id. at 2. 23
The People oppose Defendant's motion. The People argue that "[c]ivil compromise 24
25 would be appropriate if there was satisfaction for the injuries suffered in this case, yet, there is
26 no indication by Defendant that satisfaction was received. Defendant only indicates that their 27 differences were resolved and they civilly compromised the incident." People's Opp'n Mot. at 28
People v. Aguero (CM48-13) Page 2 of5 Decision and Order Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise 2 (Sep. 10, 2013). The People also contend that "there is no victim in this case" and there can 1
2 be no civil compromise without a named victim." ld. at 3.
3 Misdemeanors may be compromised in accordance with Guam law. Guam's Criminal 4 Procedure provides when misdemeanors may be compromised as follows: 5 (a) When the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense which is 6 not a felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense has a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised as provided by the 7 Section. 8 (b) If the person injured appears before, or files his declaration in, the court in which the 9 criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges that he has received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, on payment of the costs incurred, 10 order the criminal action dismissed. 11 (c) A dismissal under this Section is a bar to another prosecution of the same offense. 12 8 GCA § 80.90 13
Section 80.90 is based on California Penal Code§§ 1377 and 1378. California case law 14
15 is persuasive when there is no compelling reason to deviate from California's interpretation.
16 Zurich Ins. (Guam), Inc. v. Santos, 2007 Guam 23 ~ 7. As such, the legislative purpose behind 17 allowing civil compromise of criminal misdemeanors is not to guarantee a victim maximum 18 compensation for the injury, but to remove from criminal prosecution those offenses for which 19
20 there is a civil remedy available. People v. Stephen, 182 Cal. App.3rd 14, 27 (1986). The
21 rationale for this legislative purpose, as indicated in Stephen, is that the public interest in those 22 cases is best served by requiring the accused to make restitution directly and immediately to the 23 individual victim instead of subjecting the accused to criminal sanctions for the welfare of 24
society in general. Id. 25
26 In People v. lvfoulton, 131 Cal.App.3d Supp. 10 (1982), the Court held that various
27 factors may be taken into consideration by a trial judge in determining whether to dismiss a 28 misdemeanor criminal prosecution under a civil compromise statute. These factors include (1)
People v. Aguero (CM48-13) Page 3 of5 Decision and Order- Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise whether the civil injury was coextensive with the criminal violation; (2) whether the 1
2 circumstances were such that through private settlement the injury to the public was fully
3 vindicated; and (3) whether the victim's settlement agreement was made voluntarily. Id. at 21- 4 23. 5 In the instant case, the Defendant was charged with Assault by Mutual Combat (As a 6
Petty Misdemeanor). As indicated in Moulton, by its very nature, Assault is a crime in which 7
8 the person injured would almost always have a civil action for damages. Id. at 21. Since a civil
9 remedy was readily available at the inception of this criminal case, it may be deduced that the 10 civil injury was coextensive with the criminal violation. 11 In regards to whether the circumstances are such that through private settlement the 12 injury to the public would be fully vindicated, the Moulton court held that the seriousness of the 13
14 injury, as well as the circumstances of the commission of the offense, are taken into
15 consideration in "determining whether a civil satisfaction adequately vindicates the public's 16 interest in enforcing its criminal laws." !d. at 23. In the instant case, the altercation was between 17 the Defendant and his Co-Defendant brother. 18
19 Lastly, in regards to whether the victim's settlement agreement was made voluntarily,
20 this Court recognizes that both co-Defendants and cross victims submitted their Declaration 21 that they have met and resolved their differences and civilly compromised the incident. The 22 Court is not in a position to second guess their Declaration, considering it was submitted under 23 penalty of peljury. Therefore, the Court accepts that the cross victims have voluntarily made 24
25 their Declaration.
26 The Court finds that Defendant's motion provides both the legal and factual basis to 27 approve dismissal pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.90 for the following reasons: (1) The acts 28
People v. Aguero (CM48-13) Page 4 of5 Decision and Order Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise constituting the offense have a remedy by civil action; (2) the injury suffered by the cross 1
2 victims was not serious in nature and private settlement would fully vindicate any injury to the
3 public; and (3) the cross victims have submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury that they 4 received satisfaction for the injury and would like for the Attorney General's Office to dismiss 5 this case by way of civil compromise. There is no information provided to the Court of any 6 costs incurred as a result of this incident. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion 7
8 recognizing that the civil compromise statute as applied in the instant case serves the interests of
9 justice, judicial economy and fairness to the parties. 10 CONCLUSION 11 By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court 12
13 GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise.
14 Further proceedings is set for (0 r/r~ at_k.wt._ r • 15 SO ORDERED this _1_day of OCTOBER, 2013. 16
21 HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA Judge, Superior Court of Guam 22
People v. Aguero (CM48-13) Page 5 of5 Decision and Order- Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise