J J
F! LE D SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2022 FEB 28 PH \2= 23 CLERK OF COURT
ay=
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No.: CF0690-19 GPD Report No.: 19-32949 Plaintiff,
vs.
DECISION AND ORDER JOEY QUINTANILLA AQUININGOC, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION DOB: 4/10/1966 TO DISMISS Defendant.
This matter came before the Honorable Dana A. Gutierrez on November 30, 2021 for a
hearing on Defendant Joey Quintanilla Aquiningoc's ("Aquiningoc") Motion to Dismiss
("Motion") . Present via Zoom were Aquiningoc, Attorney Peter C. Perez representing
Aquiningoc, and Assistant Attorney General Sean Brown representing the People of Guam.
Having considered the arguments and briefs presented by the parties as well as the applicable
law, the Court now issues this Decision and Order DENYING Aquiningoc's Motion to Dismiss.
BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2019, Aquiningoc was charged, via Magistrate's Complaint, with Two
Counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony). Mag. Con pl.
(Dec. 18, 2019). At the Magistrate's Hearing, Aquiningoc was committed pending the posting of
cash bail in the amount of $15,000. Min. Entry (Dec. 18, 2019), Commitment Order (Dec. 18, »
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CF0690-19; People of Guam v Joey Quintanilla Aquiningoc
2019). On December 20, 2019, Aquiningoc paid his cash bail and was released with conditions.
Bail Payment Receipt (Dec. 20, 2019), Order of Conditional Release (Dec. 20, 2019).
On December 26, 2019, a grand jury indicted Aquiningoc on Two Counts of Second
Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony). Indictment (Dec. 26, 2019).
Aquiningoc has been released with conditions since December 20, 2019.
On September 23, 2021, Aquiningoc filed the present Motion to Dismiss. The People
filed their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on September 29, 2021. Aquiningoc filed his
Reply to the People's Opposition on October 15, 2021. The Court heard oral argument from the
parties on November 30, 2021 and subsequently took the matter under advisement.
DISCUSSION
Aquiningoc moves this Court to dismiss the Indictment filed against him with prejudice
arguing that the citation given to Aquiningoc when he was arrested lacked an appearance date.
Motion, at 1. Aquiningoc argues that pursuant to the holdings in People v Palo ro, 1998 Guam
12 and People v W llapando, 1999 Guam 31, dismissal is mandated under 8 GCA § 25.30
because the Notice to Appear was executed and entered into police records but no date and time
was written in the Notice to Appear ("NTA"). Reply, at 1. Aquiningoc asserts that because no
date was included on the NTA, the "execution date" of the NTA constitutes the "appearance
da te, " a nd ther efor e, a ny Compla int would ha ve ha d to be filed on the da te the NT A wa s
executed, specifically December 17, 2019. Min. Entry, at 1:35:38 PM (Nov. 30, 2021).
In Opposition, the People argue that the holdings in Palo ro and Wllapando are not
applicable to the case at bar because Aquiningoc was arrested and booked on December 17,
2019, but ins t ea d of being r elea s ed wit h a n NT A, Aquiningoc wa s held in Gua m P olice
2 ¢ >
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CF0690-19; People of Guam u Joey Quintanilla Aquiningoc
Department custody pending his initial court appearance. Opp., at 2. The day after his arrest and
confinement, the People filed their Magistrate's Complaint charging Aquiningoc with the crimes
listed above. Id. The People acknowledge that 8 GCA §§ 25.20-25.30 require a date and time to
be included on the NTA, but only "if the police determine that he should be released," which was
not the case here. Id.
A. Paloma and Villapando Are Distinguishable from This Case.
In People u Paloma, 1998 Guam 12, Defendant Paloma was arrested for Driving Under
the Influence of Alcohol ("DUI"). ld. at 'H 2. Palo ro was booked and released, and when he
was released, he was given a copy of his NTA which ordered him to appear before the Superior
Court on November 29, 1995. Id. On the date of his NTA, Palo ro had not yet been served with
a Complaint pursuant to 8 GCA § 45.20, nor was Palo ro advised not to appear. Id. Then, on
March 19, 1996, the People filed their Complaint charging Palo ro with a DUI. Id.
Under these facts, the Guam Supreme Court interpreted 8 GCA § 25.30 as the creation of
a " d e f a c e statute of limitations." Palo ro, 1998 Guam 12 11 14. Title 8 GCA § 25.30 provides:
The officer shall forthwith deliver the copy of the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney charged with the duty to prosecute the offense charged. At or before the time at which the person promised to appear, if the prosecuting attorney determines that the offense should be prosecuted, he shall file the notice to appear and a complaint and affidavits which satisfy the requirements of § 45.20 in the court in which the person has promised to appear. If the prosecuting attorney determines that the offense should not be prosecuted he shall make a reasonable effort to notify the person arrested that his appearance will not be required.
The Paloma Court found that if the People choose to prosecute its case pursuant to 8
GCA § 25.30 by issuing an NTA, they are bound by the language of § 25.30 which mandates the
People act prior to the NTA date. Id. at 1] 14. Therefore, in Palomo's case, because the People
3 s
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CF0690-19; People of Guam v Joey Quintanilla A q u iningoc
failed to either tile a Complaint prior to his NTA date or advise the defendant that he need not
appear on his NTA date, the People did not comply with § 25.30's d e f a c e statute of limitations,
and the trial court properly dismissed the case. Id.
In People v I/illapando, 1999 Guam 31, the Guam Supreme Court considered the issue of
whether the holding in Palo ro applies to felony cases. Wllapando, 1999 Guam 31 111] 1-2. The
appeal consolidated the cases of sixteen different defendants. Id. at 11113-20. As was the case for
Palo ro, all sixteen defendants in Wllapando were booked and released and given a citation with
a n NT A tha t included r espective da tes a nd times on the NT A. Id. The Wllapando Court
ultimately reasoned that the § 25.30 statute of limitations applies to felony cases in the same way
it applies to misdemeanor cases. Id. at 111143-44.
The case at bar is distinguishable from both Palo ro and Wllapando because Aquiningoc
was not booked and released. Compare Mot. to Dismiss, Attachment Arrest Record (copy of
Aquiningoc's Arrest Record which states that Aquiningoc was "released to: Department of
Corrections"), with People u Paloma, 1998 Guam 12, People v Wllapando, 1999 Guam 31.
Aquiningoc admits that he was not released, but rather was taken into custody. Min. Entry, at
1:35:38 PM (Nov. 30, 2021). On December 18, 2019, the day after his alTest and confinement,
the People filed their Magistrates Complaint and Aquiningoc was brought before the Magistrate
for his Magistrate's Hearing.
Because Aquiningoc was held and not released, unlike the defendants in Paloma and
Wllapando, this case has an important distinction from the cases on which Aquiningoc relies.
Therefore, the holdings of Paloma and Wllapando are not controlling on the issue of whether the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J J
F! LE D SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2022 FEB 28 PH \2= 23 CLERK OF COURT
ay=
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No.: CF0690-19 GPD Report No.: 19-32949 Plaintiff,
vs.
DECISION AND ORDER JOEY QUINTANILLA AQUININGOC, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION DOB: 4/10/1966 TO DISMISS Defendant.
This matter came before the Honorable Dana A. Gutierrez on November 30, 2021 for a
hearing on Defendant Joey Quintanilla Aquiningoc's ("Aquiningoc") Motion to Dismiss
("Motion") . Present via Zoom were Aquiningoc, Attorney Peter C. Perez representing
Aquiningoc, and Assistant Attorney General Sean Brown representing the People of Guam.
Having considered the arguments and briefs presented by the parties as well as the applicable
law, the Court now issues this Decision and Order DENYING Aquiningoc's Motion to Dismiss.
BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2019, Aquiningoc was charged, via Magistrate's Complaint, with Two
Counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony). Mag. Con pl.
(Dec. 18, 2019). At the Magistrate's Hearing, Aquiningoc was committed pending the posting of
cash bail in the amount of $15,000. Min. Entry (Dec. 18, 2019), Commitment Order (Dec. 18, »
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CF0690-19; People of Guam v Joey Quintanilla Aquiningoc
2019). On December 20, 2019, Aquiningoc paid his cash bail and was released with conditions.
Bail Payment Receipt (Dec. 20, 2019), Order of Conditional Release (Dec. 20, 2019).
On December 26, 2019, a grand jury indicted Aquiningoc on Two Counts of Second
Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a First Degree Felony). Indictment (Dec. 26, 2019).
Aquiningoc has been released with conditions since December 20, 2019.
On September 23, 2021, Aquiningoc filed the present Motion to Dismiss. The People
filed their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on September 29, 2021. Aquiningoc filed his
Reply to the People's Opposition on October 15, 2021. The Court heard oral argument from the
parties on November 30, 2021 and subsequently took the matter under advisement.
DISCUSSION
Aquiningoc moves this Court to dismiss the Indictment filed against him with prejudice
arguing that the citation given to Aquiningoc when he was arrested lacked an appearance date.
Motion, at 1. Aquiningoc argues that pursuant to the holdings in People v Palo ro, 1998 Guam
12 and People v W llapando, 1999 Guam 31, dismissal is mandated under 8 GCA § 25.30
because the Notice to Appear was executed and entered into police records but no date and time
was written in the Notice to Appear ("NTA"). Reply, at 1. Aquiningoc asserts that because no
date was included on the NTA, the "execution date" of the NTA constitutes the "appearance
da te, " a nd ther efor e, a ny Compla int would ha ve ha d to be filed on the da te the NT A wa s
executed, specifically December 17, 2019. Min. Entry, at 1:35:38 PM (Nov. 30, 2021).
In Opposition, the People argue that the holdings in Palo ro and Wllapando are not
applicable to the case at bar because Aquiningoc was arrested and booked on December 17,
2019, but ins t ea d of being r elea s ed wit h a n NT A, Aquiningoc wa s held in Gua m P olice
2 ¢ >
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CF0690-19; People of Guam u Joey Quintanilla Aquiningoc
Department custody pending his initial court appearance. Opp., at 2. The day after his arrest and
confinement, the People filed their Magistrate's Complaint charging Aquiningoc with the crimes
listed above. Id. The People acknowledge that 8 GCA §§ 25.20-25.30 require a date and time to
be included on the NTA, but only "if the police determine that he should be released," which was
not the case here. Id.
A. Paloma and Villapando Are Distinguishable from This Case.
In People u Paloma, 1998 Guam 12, Defendant Paloma was arrested for Driving Under
the Influence of Alcohol ("DUI"). ld. at 'H 2. Palo ro was booked and released, and when he
was released, he was given a copy of his NTA which ordered him to appear before the Superior
Court on November 29, 1995. Id. On the date of his NTA, Palo ro had not yet been served with
a Complaint pursuant to 8 GCA § 45.20, nor was Palo ro advised not to appear. Id. Then, on
March 19, 1996, the People filed their Complaint charging Palo ro with a DUI. Id.
Under these facts, the Guam Supreme Court interpreted 8 GCA § 25.30 as the creation of
a " d e f a c e statute of limitations." Palo ro, 1998 Guam 12 11 14. Title 8 GCA § 25.30 provides:
The officer shall forthwith deliver the copy of the notice to appear to the prosecuting attorney charged with the duty to prosecute the offense charged. At or before the time at which the person promised to appear, if the prosecuting attorney determines that the offense should be prosecuted, he shall file the notice to appear and a complaint and affidavits which satisfy the requirements of § 45.20 in the court in which the person has promised to appear. If the prosecuting attorney determines that the offense should not be prosecuted he shall make a reasonable effort to notify the person arrested that his appearance will not be required.
The Paloma Court found that if the People choose to prosecute its case pursuant to 8
GCA § 25.30 by issuing an NTA, they are bound by the language of § 25.30 which mandates the
People act prior to the NTA date. Id. at 1] 14. Therefore, in Palomo's case, because the People
3 s
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CF0690-19; People of Guam v Joey Quintanilla A q u iningoc
failed to either tile a Complaint prior to his NTA date or advise the defendant that he need not
appear on his NTA date, the People did not comply with § 25.30's d e f a c e statute of limitations,
and the trial court properly dismissed the case. Id.
In People v I/illapando, 1999 Guam 31, the Guam Supreme Court considered the issue of
whether the holding in Palo ro applies to felony cases. Wllapando, 1999 Guam 31 111] 1-2. The
appeal consolidated the cases of sixteen different defendants. Id. at 11113-20. As was the case for
Palo ro, all sixteen defendants in Wllapando were booked and released and given a citation with
a n NT A tha t included r espective da tes a nd times on the NT A. Id. The Wllapando Court
ultimately reasoned that the § 25.30 statute of limitations applies to felony cases in the same way
it applies to misdemeanor cases. Id. at 111143-44.
The case at bar is distinguishable from both Palo ro and Wllapando because Aquiningoc
was not booked and released. Compare Mot. to Dismiss, Attachment Arrest Record (copy of
Aquiningoc's Arrest Record which states that Aquiningoc was "released to: Department of
Corrections"), with People u Paloma, 1998 Guam 12, People v Wllapando, 1999 Guam 31.
Aquiningoc admits that he was not released, but rather was taken into custody. Min. Entry, at
1:35:38 PM (Nov. 30, 2021). On December 18, 2019, the day after his alTest and confinement,
the People filed their Magistrates Complaint and Aquiningoc was brought before the Magistrate
for his Magistrate's Hearing.
Because Aquiningoc was held and not released, unlike the defendants in Paloma and
Wllapando, this case has an important distinction from the cases on which Aquiningoc relies.
Therefore, the holdings of Paloma and Wllapando are not controlling on the issue of whether the
present case must be dismissed.
4 9
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CF0690-19; People of Guam u Joey Quintanilla A q u iningoc
B. Because Aquiningoc Was Not Released, Title 8 GCA §§ 45.10-45.20 Are Applicable in This Case.
Guam's statute prescribing the Notice to Appear "form" requirements, specifically 8
GCA § 25.20, clearly states that it applies only "[i]fan officer determines that the person arrested
should be released[.]" If the officer does determine that release is appropriate, the decision to
release the defendant then triggers the requirement for the officer to "prepare in duplicate a
written notice to appear in court, containing ... the time and place when and where the person
shall appear in court." 8 GCA § 25.20(a).
By contrast, if the person arrested is not released, the officer into whose custody the
person is placed may instead take "such person before a judge as required by § 45.10." See 8
GCA § 25.l0(a), see also 8 GCA § 45.30(a) ("At the time the defendant is brought before the
court pursuant to § 45.10 or appears pursuant to a summons issued pursuant to Chapter 15
(commencing with § l5.l0) or a notice to appear pursuant to § 25.20, the court shall inform the
defendant [of various rights].") (emphasis added). Title 8 GCA § 45. 10(a) and (c) provide that:
(a) An officer making an arrest under a warrant or any person making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before a judge of the Superior Court. [ ... ] (c) The person arrested shall in all cases be taken before the judge within forty-eight (48) hours after the arrest, except that when the forty-eight (48) hour period expires, it is the burden of the government to demonstrate that a bona fide emergency or an extraordinary circumstance existed.
Further, 8 GCA § 45.20(a) provides that:
(a) Where a person is arrested without a warrant, at or before the time he is brought before the court pursuant to § 45. 10, the prosecuting attorney shall tile a complaint which satisfies the requirements of § 15.10 and affidavits showing pr oba ble ca us e t o believe t ha t a n offens e ha s been commit t ed a nd t ha t t he defendant has committed it.
5 I
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS CF0690-19; People of Guam u Joey Quintanilla Aquiningoc
Upon a rev iew of the abov e statutes, it is clear that 8 GCA §§ 45.10--45.20 apply to the
case at bar rather than 8 GCA § 25.30 which applies to defendants who are booked and released.
Here, Aquiningoc was committed at DOC and brought before a magistrate judge the day after his
arrest, which is within 48 hours of his arrest and was "without unnecessary delay." 8 GCA §
45.10, Mot. to Dismiss, Attachment (stating that Aquiningoc was "released to: Department of
Corrections"), Min. Entry, Magistrate's Hearing (Dec. 18, 2019). At the time of Aquiningoc's
first appearance pursuant to § 45.10, the People tiled their Magistrate's Complaint along with an
affidavit showing probable cause to believe that Aquiningoc committed the offenses charged, as
required by 8 GCA § 45.20(a). Mag. Con pl. (Dec. 18, 2019).
Thus, based on the aforementioned facts, the People have satisfied the requirements
u n de r 8 G CA §§ 45.10- 45.20. Alt hou gh t he "Ar r es t R ecor d" docu ment a t t a ched t o
Aquiningoc's Motion to Dismiss does include a section titled "Notice to Appear," the NT A
requirements under 8 GCA §§ 25.20-25.30 did not apply to the case at bar. The NTA section of
the "Arrest Record" document was not applicable to Aquiningoc's case because he was not
released upon his arrest. Accordingly, this Court must deny Aquiningoc's Motion to Dismiss.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and in accordance with the applicable law, the Court hereby
DENIES Aquiningoc's Motion to Dismiss.
S O O RDE RE D; FEB Z 8 2022
SERVICE VIA E-MAIL I acer"~wledge that an electronic copy01 the Ari anal was e~mailed to; HOD LE DANIAI A. GUTI EZ Am om Judy riorlCoui't of Gua
Date: i'1}3*»'
s i-€'l0r Court Of Guam 6