People v. Camacho

Opinion

FI l ED 1 CLERKgo: SLEE. OF COURT QRT

2 2: 38 lm egg 38 P 3 3~?'§§?'3.%iI§? e gp1 I 4 #H ¢='* um 'I g§-,3E*%,§*5:§

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OF GUAM 77 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE CRIMINAL CF0S27-24 CASE NO. CF0527-24 )) 8 ) vs. )) 9 )) DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DENYING 10 RICHARD SANTOS JASON RICHARD ) THE OAG'S STATEMENT STATEMENT OF OF CAMACHO, )) OBJECTION OBJECTION 77 GCA GCA §§6107 6107 11 11 DOB: 01/02/1982 0110211982 AND AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DISQUALIFY ) 12 12 )) Defendant. ) 13 13 ) 14 14 INTRODUCTION 15 15 This matter is before matter is before the the Honorable HonorableMaria MariaT. T. Cenzon upon uponthe theOffice Office of the Attorney 16 16 General's General's (the (the "Office "Officeofofthe theAttorney AttorneyGeneral" General"or orthe the"OAG") "OAG")Statement StatementofofObj section 77 GCA Objection GCA §§ 17 17

6107 andMotion 6107 and MotiontotoDisqualify Disqualify(the (the"Objection"). "Objection"). The OAG OAG objects objects to to the the Honorable Alberto E. Honorable Alberto 18 18

19 19 Tolentino's (hereinafter (hereinafter "Judge "Judge Tolentino") competency competency to to preside preside over over the the above-captioned above-captioned 20 20 matter under77GCA matter under GCA §§ 6105 6105 and requestshis and requests hisdisqualification disqualification pursuant pursuant toto77GCA GCA §§ 6107. 6107. 21 Having Having considered considered the Objection Objection and Answer of and Answer ofJudge Tolentino, as Judge Tolentino, as well well as as the applicable 22 statutes andcase statutes and law and caselaw andthe therelevant relevantportions portionsof of the the record, record, this this Court Court issues issues the the following following 23

24 24 Decision Decision and OrderDENYING and Order DENYING the the Office Officeofofthe theAttorney AttorneyGeneral's General'srequest requestto todisqualify disqualify Judge Judge

25 Tolentino and Tolentino and reassign this case. case. 26 26 // II 27 II // 28 // II People People v. Camacho Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0527-24 Decision Decision and Order Denying and Order Denying the the OAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and Motion to and Motion to Disqualify Disqualify Page 11 of 20 of20 1 PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 A. The Brief Brief Procedural Procedural History History of of this this Case Case and and Objection Objection to to Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino 3 Assignment

4 On July 27, 2024, July 27, 2024,the thePeople Peopleof of Guam GUam("the ("the People") People") lodged lodged aa Magistrate's Magistrate's Complaint Complaint 5 against Defendant Jason against Defendant JasonRichard RichardSantos SantosCamacho Camacho("Defendant ("DefendantCamacho") Camacho")for forthe theoffense offense of 6 Possession of a Schedule Schedule II Controlled Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Substance (As Degree Felony). Felony).On OnJuly July 30, 30, 2024, 2024, 7

8 Judge Judge Tolentino was assigned to this matter. On August 5, 2024, a& grand jury this matter. jwv returned an 9 Indictment Indictmentininthis thismatter, matter,charging charging.Defendant DefendantCamacho Camachoofofthe thesame same offense offense as as described described above. above. 10 10 On On August 15, 15, 2024, Camacho plead 2024, Defendant Camacho pleadnot notguilty guilty to to the charged offense offense and waived waived his 11 1 right to speedy trial. On August speedy trial. August 19, 19,2024, 2024,the theOAG OAGfiled filed its itsObjection. Objection. Stmt. Stmt.of of Objection Objection 7 GCA GCA 12 12 §6107 And Mot. §6107 And Mot. To To Disqualify (Aug. 19, 2024)(the Disqualify (Aug. "Objection"). On August 22, 2024, Judge 2024)(the "Objection"). 13 13

14 14 Tolentino filed his Tolentino his Ariswer Answer to to Statement Statement of Objection. Objection. Ans. To Stmt. Stmt. of Objection (Aug. 22, of Objection

15 15 2024)(the "Answer").On 2024)(the "Answer"). OnAugust August23, 23,2024, 2024,this thisCourt Courtwas wasdesignated designatedas as the the Recusal Recusal Judge Judge to rule 16 16 on the Objection. Objection. Ntc. of of Assignment Assignment of ofRecusal Recusal Judge Judge (Aug. 23, 23, 2024). 2024). On On August August 23, 23, 2024, 2024, 17 17 this Court issued its CR1 CRl.1.1 Form Form 33 taking taking the thematter matterunder underadvisement advisementon onthe thebriefs. briefs. CRl.1 CR1.1 Form 18 19 3 (Notice of Hrg. or Submission Submission on Briefs (Aug. 23, 23, 2024). 2024). Defendant has not Defendant has not joined joined in the 19

20 20 People's People's Objection Objectionnor nor otherwise otherwise sought sought to disqualify Judge Tolentino. Judge Tolentino.

21 1. 1. The TheBasis Basis of of OAG's OAG'sObjection. Objection. 22 The gravamen gravamen of the the OAG's OAG's Objection Objection isisthat that Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino is is disqualified disqualified from from 23 presiding over all cases involving the cases involving the Office Officeofofthe theAttorney AttorneyGeneral Generalbased basedupon upon the the mandate mandate of 24 7 GCA §§6105(a) 7 GCA 6105(a) .requiring thejudge requiring the judgeto to"disqualify "disqualify himself himself .... in in any any proceeding in in which which his .... 25

26 26 impartiality impartiality might might reasonably be questioned reasonably be questioned .... ... 71 Objectionatatp.p.22(citing " Objection (citing77GCA GCA§§6105(a)). 6105(a)). The The

27 27 OAG OAG alleges alleges that that "knowing "knowing all allthe thefacts factsand andunderstanding understanding the the context context involving involving Judge Judge 28 28 Tolentino's history Tolentino's history of ofdisqualifying disqualifying himself himself where where the the AG AG was was involved, involved, ititisisclear clearthat that Judge Judge

People People v.· Camacho Criminal Case No. CF0527-24 Case No. Decision Decision and Order Denying and Order Denying the the OAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and andMotion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page Page 2 of2020 1 Tolentino is is aa disqualified judge judge in any any case casewhere wherethe theAG AGMoylan Moylan is is involved." involved." Objection Objection at at p. 2 5. Other than Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's past past sue sua sponge sponte recusals basedupon recusals based uponAG AGMoylan's Moylan's biological 3 relationship to his relationship to his stepchildren stepchildren- -.the thelast lastofofwhich whichwas wasnearly nearlytwo twoyears yearsago ago- - the the OAG OAG alleges 4 no specific specific facts, facts, asserted asserted by someone with personal personal knowledge of ofsuch purpodedly such facts, which purportedly 5

6 invoke the provisions provisions of ofSection 6105. 1 Instead, Section6105.1 Instead, the theObjection Objection only iterates the the finding finding inPeople People

7 v. v. Taitingong, Taitingfong, et et al., Superior Superior Court Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0024-24 CF0024-24 (June (June 4, 2024)(Iria1te, 2024)(Iriarte, J.) that 8 Judge Tolentino Judge Tolentino was was disqualified disqualifiedin inthat thatcase case based based upon factors considered considered in in that that particular case. 9 Moreover, Moreover, the the "Verification" "Verification"executed executedby byChief ChiefProsecutor ProsecutorRudolph Rudolphpurporting purporting to to be be "true "true and and 10 10

111 correct" correct" also also disavows disavows the the accuracy accuracy of "factual "factual matters matters averred averred on information and and belief." belief."

12 12 Objection action at p. p. 8.

13 Nevertheless, the Objection identifies two purportedly disqualifying factors, purportedly disqualifying factors, the the first first of 14 14 which places places the blame squarely upon the squarely upon the Superior Court of Guam Superior Court Guam and and the the second second upon upon a 15 15 "familial relationship" relationship" between between Judge Tolentino and Judge Tolentino and Attorney Attorney General General Douglas Douglas Moylan Moylan 16 16

17 (hereinafter "Attorney "Attorney General Moylan," Moylan," "Mr. "Mr. Moylan" Moylan"or or"Moylan") "Moylan")which whichpurportedly purportedlyrequires requires

18 JudgeTolentino Judge Tolentino to to recuse recusehimself, himself,specifically: specifically: 19 (1) The Superior Superior Court Court should should have prevented prevented Judge Tolentino from Judge Tolentino 20 handling mattersinvolving handling matters involving the the Attorney Attorney General General of of Guam, Guam, as he had had previously previously disqualified disqualified himself sue sua sponge, from all matters sponte, from matters involving 21 Douglas Douglas B. B. Moylan Moylanpursuant pursuant to to 7 7 GCA GCA§§6105 6105 and and 6106, 6106; and and 22 (2) The familial familial relationship relationship between between Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney 23 General General Moylan Moylan which which constituted constituted the grounds for Judge grounds for Tolentino's sue Judge Tolentino's sua sponge sponte disqualifications and have have not not changed. changed.[sic] [sic] 24 Objection Objection at at p. 2 (emphasis inoriginal). emphasis in original). 25

27 11 The The Court finds finds it significant that the allegations that the allegations purportedly purportedlygiving giving rise rise to to a conflict conflict are only advanced advanced by by Actin Acting 28 ChiefProsecutor Chief Prosecutor Rudolph Rudolph and that thatno noDeclaration Declarationmade madeunder underpenalty penaltyofofperjury perjurybybyAttorney AttorneyGeneral GeneralMoylan-wh Moylan who is the only individual other than Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentinowho who would would have have firsthand firsthandknowledge knowledge of of any any ongoing ongoing "close "close personal persona relationship" between between himself himselfand and Judge Tolentino - was Judge Tolentino was submitted submitted to provide a factual basis for factual basis for the the disqualification. disqualification. People People v. Camacho Camacho Criminal Case No. CF0527-24 CF0527-24 Decision and Decision Order Denying and Order Denying the theOAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of 7 GCA Objection 7 6107 and GCA §§ 6107 Motion to and Motion to Disqualify Disqualify Page 3 of20 1 Citing Citing to to the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court case ofSan case of v. Superior San Agustin v. of Guam, 2 the Superior Court ofGuam,2 2 OAG posits, OAG posits, "the "the Superior Superior Court Court must must align its process process for assigning judges to assigning judges to the the record record of aa 3 prospective judge's history history of ofdisqualification." disqualification." Objection Objection at at pp. 6-7. In short, the OAG argues 4 that, in assigning that, assigning cases casesto tojudicial judicialofficers, officers, the Superior Court of ofGuam Guam should disregard multiple multiple 5

6 provisions of ofthe the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court's administrative rule, including administrative rule, the "case assignment" including the assignment" 7 rule and the rule the rule governing the disqualification of of aa judicial officer3 merely judicial officers merely because because Judge 8 Tolentino had routinely recused had routinely refused himself himself in in cases casesinvolving involving Mr. Moylan Moylan through through October 2022 9 and before the and before the latter latter assumed his elected assumed his elected office office as as Attorney Attorney General General in in 2023. 2023. By further further 10 implication, the OAG implication, the OAG asks asks this this Court Court to to find find that that the the Superior Superior Court Court should should have ignored the 11 1

12 12 substantive andprocedural substantive and provisionsof disqualificationprovisions proceduraldisqualification of 7 7 GCA GCA §§ §§6105 6105and and 6106 6106 and and further further 13 13 omit Judge Tolentino from the random Judge Tolentino assignmentof random assignment ofcases caseswhich whichinvolve involve the theOAG OAG (including 14 14 criminal cases) becausethe cases) because thejudge judgepreviously previouslyrecused reused himself himself from from presiding presiding over over cases cases in which 15 15 Mr. Moylan Moylan represented defendanton represented a defendant onthe the grounds groundsthat thatMr. Mr.Moylan Moylan"is "is the the father father of of [his] [his] 16

17 stepchildren." Obj action at p. 2. Objection 2.

18 2. Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's Answer. 19 19 Judge Tolentino's Judge Tolentino's Answer Answer to to the the Objection Objectionisislengthy lengthyand and detailed, detailed, and and the the Court Court finds 20 the the following following responses, responses, made made under penalty of perjury, under penalty perjury, particularly relevant to particularly relevant to this Court's Court's 21 recusal determination: recusal determination: 22

23 1 6.6. That 'H That at Mr. Mr. Moylan's Moylan's request, request, aa meeting ~eeting between between him him and and the the undersigned, the undersigned's undersigned, the undersigned's chamber chamberstaff, staff, the the Administrator Administrator of of the 24

25 2 2 2024 Guam 2024 Guam 2.2. Curiously, Curiously, the the first first "factor" has has less to do with with Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's actions actions or purported inaction and an 26 seems seems toto be be more moreof of an an action actiontoto compel compel thetheSuperior SuperiorCourtCourtto to "do" "do" an actact -- that is, omit Judge Tolentino from from the th case assignmentprocedures case assignment proceduresof ofthe theadministrative administrative rule rule based baseduponuponaadisqualifying disqualifying factor. This This would wouldseem seem to be more 27 appropriate Luider appropriate under a writ writ proceeding, proceeding, ironically ironically akin akin to to the writproceeding the writ proceedingdescribed described inindetail detailby bythe theGuam Guam Supreme Suprem Court in in San Agustin, Agustin, the the OAG's OAG's principal principal case. case. See, San Agustin See, San ,r,r 35-41.. Agustin at 111]35-41 3 Administrative Rule 3 28 Administrative Rule No. 24-001 (March 6, 24-001 {March 6, 2024). 2024). Section Section IIIIII ofofAR24-001 AR24-001establishes establishes the the procedure procedure for the th assignment assignment of Cases. SectionIV.A. cases. Section IV.A. addresses addresses thetheassignment assignmentof of cases casesuponuponthe thedisqualification disqualification of of a judge and and the th assignment assignment of of the recusal recusal judge. judge. People People v. Camacho Camacho Criminal Case No. CF0527-24 CF0527-24 Decision and Decision Order Denying and Order Denying the theOAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of 7 GCA Objection 7 6107 and GCA §§ 6107 Motion to and Motion to Disqualify Disqualify Page 4 of 20 of20 " 1 Courts, and Mr. Courts, and Mr. Moylan's transition transition chairperson, Mr. Wilfred chairperson, Mr. Wilfred Aflague, occurred in in December 2022, 2022; 2

3 ~ 7. That 117. That at atthis thismeeting, meeting, Mr. Moylan Moylanassured assured me and and the other members in attendance attendance thatthatheheperceived perceivedno noconflict conflict in in his his election as the the Attorney 4 General and the prosecution and the prosecution of criminal cases before the cases before the undersigned. It was agreed that the circumstances underlying my circumstances underlying my recusal recusal in matters that Mr. matters that 5 Moylan Moylan was was aa lawyer lawyer nono longer longer existed, existed, to towit: wit:that thatduring during my my term term as as the 6 Magistrate judge I had had routinely routinelyrecused reused myself from all matters myself from all matters where Mr. Mr. Moylan Moylan was was thethe attorney attorney of ofaa party party before beforememeon onthethebasis basis that that he was the 7 father father of of my my minor minor step-children step-children and and that that the the minor minor step-children step-children were 8 members of and and resided in the household maintained maintainedby bYmeme and andmy mywife wife and that that as asofof even date, date, both step-children have now reached majority and 9 adulthood andand have have been been residing residing at their own own residences residences in in Guam Guam and in the U.S. Mainland, Mainland; 10

~ 8. 1] 8. That That Mr. Moylan Moylan never nevermade made an an appearance as a lawyer appearance as lawyer in this case, case; 11 1

12 12 ~ 9. That 119. That neither neitherMr. Mr.Moylan Moylan nor nor the the Office Office of of the the Attorney Attorney General General hadhad ever ever challenged challenged or or objected objected to to me me presiding presiding over overthis thiscase case until until the the instant instant 13 Statement of Objection and Statement of andMotion Motion toto Disqualify Disqualify filed filed herein, herein; 14 14 ~ 12. That 1112. That additionally additionally movant has hasnot not explained explained why why or how the fact that that 15 15 Mr. Moylan is the biological father of the undersigned's stepchildren Moylan is the biological father of the undersigned's stepchildren requires disqualification disqualification of ofthe the undersigned, undersigned; 16 16

17 17 ~ 14. 11 14.That Thatmymywife wife Doris Doris L.G. Tolentino andand Attorney General General Moylan were divorced divorcedon onJune June 13, 13, 1997, 1997, and that that there therewere were two two minor children children at 18 the time of of the the dissolution of manage, dissolution of marriage, to to wit: wit:Brandon Brandon (born (born 1990) 1990) and and Angela Angela (born (born 1992); 1992); 19

20 ~ 15. 11 15.That Thatmy mywifewife and and II have been together together since 2001 2001 and that that we we were married civilly in married civilly in 2005 2005 and and eventually eventually in in the the Roman Roman Catholic Catholic Church Church in 21 December December 2023, 2023; 22 ~ 17. 11 17.That Thatsince sincemy mywife wife and andII have have been been together together II have never observed 23 Mr. Moylan Moylan and my wife involved in any sense in and my wife involved in any sense. in co-parenting the children of their their manage marriage asasthe thechildren children have have been been raised raised and and provided provided with with 24 protection and care to ensure ensure their healthy healthy development development intointo adulthood, adulthood, 25 primarily primarilybybymymywife wifeand andme, me,and and that that they are are in in fact fact adults adults able to conduct and make maketheir theirown owndecisions decisionsin inlife; life, 26 11 18.That ~ 18. That based baseduponuponthe the foregoing foregoing averments, the fact averments, the fact that that Attorney 27 General Moylan is the biological father of the undersigned's step=children Moylan is the biological father of the undersigned's step .. 28 provides no basis provides no basis for for disqualification disqualificationunder under77GCA GCA §§ 6105(b) 6l05(b) or or that that the the

People People v. Camacho Criminal Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0527=24 CF0527~24 Decision Decision and Order Denying and Order Denying the the OAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and andMotion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 20 Page 5 of20 1 undersigned's "impartiality might undersigned's might reasonably reasonably be questioned" questioned" as as required required under subsection subsection(a); (a), 2

3 ,r 19. 11 19.That That"[u]nder "[u]nder subsection subsection6105 6105(a), (a), what what matters mattersisisnot not "actual "actual bias" bias" but "the appearance appearance of of bias." Van Van Dox Dox at ,r 32 (citing at 1132 (citing Dizon Dizon v.v. Super. Super. Ct. 4 (People), 1998 1998 Guam guam 33 11,r 1010n.n.3).3).The The appearance appearanceof of bias bias is is judged judged from from the standard of the standard of a "reasonable "reasonable person" person" who knows all who knows all the the facts, facts, and and 5 understands understands the the"contexts "contexts of the the jurisdictions, jurisdictions, parties, parties, and and controversies controversies 6 including such involved," including such "realities ''realities ofofthe the Guam Guam judicial system" system" as as the relatively relativelysmall smallnumber numberof lawyers ininthe oflawyers theGuam Guambar bar and and "the nature of Guam 7 (citation omitted). families." Id. (citation families." 8 ,r 3030....The 11 .... recusal judge [in People recusal judge People v. Taitingfongj Taitingfong,l did not not carefully carefully 9 examine or consider the the realities realities that thatmy my wife wife and Mr. Moylan have been and Mr. divorced for closeclose to to twenty-seven twenty-seven years years and and that that the the children children of their their 10 10 marriage are adults adultsliving living on on their their own own and andwellwell over over the the age age of majority marriage are 11 11 and that that no no reasonable reasonable person who knows all all the the facts facts and and understands understands the contexts of of the jurisdiction, parties and controversies controversies involved involved inin the the Guam Guam 12 12 judicial system would conclude judicial conclude that that there there exists exists an an appearance appearance of bias bias requiring my disqualification disqualification inin this this matter..... 13 13 14 14 Answer ,r,r -- 9, 12, Answeratat1116 12, 14, 15, 17 -- 19, 30.

.15 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ANALYSIS 16 16 A. A. The Law Law Governing Governing Judicial Judicial Disqualification Disqualification Is Set Forth in Guam Statute and and In 17 17 the Model Model Code Code of Judicial Conduct.

18 1. Guam GuamStatutory Statutory Mandates. Mandates. 19 Judicial disqualifications Judicial disqualifications are are governed governed by by the the substantive rulesof substantive rules of 77 GCA GCA §§6105 6105 and and the the 20 procedural rules of procedural rules of 77 GCA GCA §§ §§6106 6106 and6107. and 6107. The The relevant relevant portion portion of ofthe the disqualification disqualification statute statute 21 is Section Section 6105(b)(5), 6105(b)(5), which which requires requires that: that: 22

23 (b) AAJudge Judge shall shall also also disqualify disqualify himself himself or herself herself in the the following following circumstances, butif,if,following circumstances, but following complete disclosure to all parties disclosure to parties in the l 24 proceeding of ofthe the reasons reasons for his or her disqualification, all parties agree to 25 having having the Judge continue to Judge continue to sit in the the proceedings, he or she proceedings, he she need not disqualify himself or herself: herself: 26 (5) Where Where he or she she or his his or or her her spouse, spouse, or a person within the third 27 degree of relationship relationship to to either either of them, degree of them, or the the spouse spouse of such such 28 person: person:

People People v. v. Camacho Camacho Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0527-24 CF0527-24 4 Decision and Decision Order Denying and Order Denying the theOAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of 7 GCA Objection 7 GCA §§ 6107 and Motion 6107 and Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 6 of of20 1 (A) is a party to to the the proceeding, or or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; of 2 (B) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding ....4 lawyer in 3 Correspondingly, Section 6106 compels a judge to disclose a disqualification enumerated under 4 6105: 5 6l05:5 5

6 Justice or Judge shall have knowledge of Whenever a Justice of any any fact fact or or facts facts under the which, under the provisions provisions ofof6105 6105 Ofof this Chapter, Chapter, disqualify him or or her 7 to sit or act act as as such such in in any any action action or or proceeding proceeding pending pending before him or her, it shall be his or her duty to declare the same in open court court and cause a 8 memorandum memorandumthereofthereoftoto be be entered enteredinin the the minutes. minutes. ItIt shall shall be the duty of of the 9 clerk to transmit forthwith a copy of such memorandum memorandum to to each each party or his or her attorney who who shall have appeared in such action action or or proceeding, proceeding, except 10 10 such parties asas are are presented presented in person or by by attorney attorney when when the declaration 11 1 is made.

12 12 If a judge If judge fails fails to disclose disclose aa disqualifying disqualifying factor factor under Section Section 6105, 6105, then, pursuant to 13 13 Section 6107, 6107, any party to the action who has appeared in the case may raise the objection to 14 14 competency. 6 In this regard, competency.6 regard, Section 6107 provides, in relevant relevant part, as follows follows:: 15 15 Whenever aa Justice or Judge Whenever Judge who shall be disqualified under the provisions 16 of of this Chapter to to sit or act as as such in any action or proceeding pending 17 17 before him oror her her neglects neglects or or fails fails to declare declare his oror her her disqualification disqualification in he ma the manner pr provided byby t his this CChapter, ha pt er any party tto such aaction c n oor 18 proceeding who has appeared therein may may present present to the court and file with the clerk a written statement statement obi objecting ecting to to the the hearing of such matter or any 19 19 trial of any issue trial issue of fact fact or law in such action or proceeding before such 20 Justice or Judge, and setting forth the fact or facts the ground facts constituting the of of the disqualification of such Justice disqualification of Justice or Judge. Judge. Copies of of such such written written 21 statement shall forthwith forthwith bebe served sewed byby the the presenting presenting party party on on each each party, party, or his or her attorney, attorney, who who has appeared in the the action or or proceeding proceeding and on 22 the Justice or Judge alleged in such statement to be disqualified. 23 Within ten (10) days after the service of such statement as above provided, 24 or ten (10) days after the the filing of any statement, whichever whichever is later in time, 25 the Justice or Judge Judge alleged therein to be disqualified may file with the clerk his or her consent in writing that the action or proceeding proceeding continue without 26 him or or her, or may file with the clerk his or her written answer admitting or 27

28 4 7 GCA § 6105(b)(5)(emphasis added). 4 7 GCA § 6105(b)(5)(emphasis added). 55 77 GCA GCA § § 6106 6106 (emphasis (emphasis added). added). 66 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 (emphasis (emphasis added). added). People People v. Camacho Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0527-24 Decision Decision and Order Denying and Order Denying the the OAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and andMotion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 7 of20 20 J

1 denying any any or all of ofthe the allegations allegations contained contained in insuch such statement statement and setting forth any additional fact fact or or facts facts material oror relevant relevant to the question of his 2 or her disqualification. disqualification. TheThe clerk clerk shall shall forthwith transmit transmit a copy copy of the the 3 Justice's or Judge's Judge's consent answer to consent or answer to each each party party or or his or her attorney who shall have have appeared appeared in in such action or proceeding. Every such such statement 4 and and eVery answer shall every answer shall bebe verified verified in in the the manner manner prescribed for the prescribed for the verification verification of ofpleadings. pleadings. The statementof statement.ofaa party party objecting objecting to the the Justice 5 or Judge Judge on the ground ground of of his his or or her her disqualyication disqualificationshallshallbe bepresented presented 6 the earliest at the earlies(practicable praetieable opportunity opportunity after after his or herher appearance appearance and discovery discovery ofof the facts facts constituting constituting the ground ground of the Justice's or Judge's 7 disqualyieation, disqualification, and in any any event event before before thethe commencement commencement of the the hearing hearing ofofany any issue ofoffset fact in in the the action orproceeding proceedingbefore before such Justice 8 or Judge. Judge. 9 No Justice or Judge who shall shall deny deny his his or or her qualification qualification shall shall hear hear or pass 10 upon the question of of his or or her her own own disqualification, disqualification, but in every case the 111 1 question question of the Justice's Justice's oror Judge's Judge's disqualification shall be heard and disqualification shall determined by determined by some some other .other Judge. Judge. The The Presiding Presiding Judge, or next senior Judge, 12 12 if it is the Presiding Judge's Judge's disqualification disqualification that is being requested, shall make such assignment within five (5) ( days after receiving fromfrom the clerk 13 13 the notice that the statement of of disqualification has has been filed. filed. In the case 14 14 of a Justice's disqualification, disqualification, the the matter matter shall shall be be heard heard by by the Supreme Court constituted without the questioned Justice. 15 15 admits his or If such Judge admits or her her disqualification, disqualification, or files files his or her written 16 consent that the action or proceeding be tried before another another Judge, or fails 17 17 too file file the aanswer within hin the he ten (10) (10) days aallowed; llowed, or if it sha shall be determined after thethe hearing that he or she is disqualified, she is disqualified, the action action or 18 proceeding shall be heard and determined determined by another anotherJudge of of the Superior Court who is not disqualified. Such other Judge disqualified. Such Judge shall shall be assigned assigned in the 19 same manner manner as as the Judge who who was was disqualified disqualified was assigned to hear the 20 case initially.

21 2. Model ModelCode Codeof ofJudicial Judicial Conduct: Conduct: Canon 3 22 Canon 3 of the Model Mode1Code Code of of Judicial Judicial Conducts "Model Code") mandates that "[a] Conduct7 (the "Model 23 judge shall perform the duties of judicial judicial office office impartially impartially and and diligently," diligently," and and 3E.(l)(d)(i) 3E.(l)(d)(i) and 24 (ii) of the (ii) of the Model Model Code's Code's disqualification disqualification factors factors mirror mirror those those of of 77 GCA GCA §§ 6105(b 6105(b)(5)(A) and and (B): (B): 25

27 77 The The ABA's ABA's Canon Canon ofofJudicial Judicial Ethics shall apply to and govern the conduct of Judges ofof the Superior Court of Guam. Guam. GCA §§ 6103. 77 GCA 6103. The The Model Model Code Code of ofJudicial Judicial Conduct Conduct applicable in applicable in Guam was adopted by the House of Delegates of Guam was adopted by the House of Delegates o 28 the American Bar Association on on August August 7,7, 1990, 1990, and amended amended onon August August 6, 6, 1997, 1997, August 10, 10, 1999, and August August 12, 12 hereinafter referred 2003. It is hereinafter referred to to as as the the "Model "Model Code." Code."

People v. v. Camacho Criminal Case.no. No. CF0527-24 CF0527-24 Decision and Decision and Order Order Denying Denying the the OAG's OAG's Statement Statement of Objection of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and and Motion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 8 of 20 of20 11 E. Disqualification. 2 (1) A judge judge shall disqualify himself himself or herself herself in a proceeding proceeding in which the judge's judge's 3 impartiality might might reasonably be questioned, including including but but not limited to instances where:: where 4 (d) the judge oror the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of of relationshqm* to either of relationship* of them, them, or the spouse of of such a person: 5 (i) is a party to to the the proceeding, proceeding, or an officer, director or trustee of of 6 aa party; party; lawyer in (ii) is acting as a lawyer in the the proceeding; proceeding, .... 7 B. B. The The OAG OAG hashas waived waived its right to object to to Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's qualification to preside 8 over cases involving the Office of the Attorney General. 9 As highlighted, highlighted, above, above, Section Section6107 6107 requires requiresthat thatthe the statement statementofofaaparty party obi acting to the objecting 10 10

11 Judge on the Judge the gr ground ofhis ound of his disqua disqualification lifica tion shallll be presented esented "at the earliest earliest practicable practicable

12 12 opportunity after his Q or her her appearance and discovery Q of the facts constituting the ground Q of the 13 13 or Judge's Justice's Q Judge's disqualification, and in any event before the the commencement of the hearing of commencement of of 14 14 any issue any issue of of fact fact in in the the action or proceeding action or before such proceeding before such Justice or Judge." Justice or Judge." 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 15 15 16 (emphasis added). The emphasis added). The Guam Supreme Supreme Court in Van Van Dox Dox has has confirmed confirmed that that statements statements of of 16 17 17 objection shall "be presented presented at at the the earliest earliest practicable practicable opportunity after discovery of of the facts

18 constituting the ground ground for for disqualification." disqualification." Van Van Dox ma SuperCt. v. Super Cr.(Alcorn), (Alcorn), 2008 Guam 7144. 1]44. 19 . . cc . .. .. 9 Thus, Thus, the the controlling controlling law Guam "[w]1th law in Guam w ]ith respect respect to to the the statutory statutory prov1s10n provision requiring that requlnng that 20 disqualification disqualification be urged at the 'earliest 'earliest practicable opportunity,' the intention is 'clear 'clear that failure 21 22 22 ,r 45 (quoting Caminetii waiver.an Id. 1]45 to comply with the provision constitutes a waiver."' Caminetti v. Pac. Mat. u Poe. Mut. Ins. Ins.

23 Co. o . of o f Cal., f a l . , 139 P.2d 930, 933 P.2d 930, 933 (Cal. (Cal. 1943)(emphasis 1943)(emphasis added)). added)). A A finding finding of of timeliness timeliness should be

24 24 construed liberally in the interest of of justice. Id. ,r (citing Eagle Maint. Id 1145 Mains. & & Supply Co. Co. v.u Super 25 Ct., 16 Cal. Cal. Rptr. Rptr. 745, 745, 747 747 (Dist. (Dist. Ct. Ct.App. App. 1961)). 1961)).AAtimely timelystatement statement of of objection objection is is made made "prior 26

People People v. v. Camacho Camacho Criminal Case No. CF0527-24 CF0527-24 Decision Decision and and Order Denying the Order Denying theOAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 and Motion 6107 and Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 9 of of20 1 to any hearing before the challenged judge in challenged judge in the matter." Id. 1146 "i) (citing Hollingsworth, 236 Cal. 2 Rptr. at 195-96). Van Rptr. Dox also Van Dox also cites to People v. Pariah, Panah, where the court held aa disqualification 3 untimely because because the facts of the case were known in the facts in early early September, September, but the moving moving party party 4 waited until the eve of of trial in November November to move move for for disqualification. disqualification. Id. 1146 ,r (citing People v. 5

66 Pariah, Panah, 107 P.3d 790, 824). P.3d 790,

7 More recently, in People People v. 17, the Guam Supreme Wia, 2020 Guam 17, u Win, Supreme Court Court applied applied the 8 "silence-by-waiver" rule Union, Inc. rule adopted in San Union, 10, and held that Inc. v.v Arnold, 2017 Guam 10, that 9 "[r]ather than than interpreting interpreting "agree" "agree" to parties must expressly to mean that the parties expressly agree agree to to waive the 10 11 11 held that judge's disqualification, we held that remaining remaining silent silent constitutes constitutes waiver, waiver, at at least in the context of of

12 12 GCA §§ 6105(a), 77 GCA 6105(a), "[t]o avoid the "[t]0 avoid the possibility possibility of of parties parties '1[ying] 'l[ying] in in wait, wait, raising raising the the recusal recusal issue issue 13 13 only after learning learning the the court's court's ruling ruling on on the the merits.' merits.' "Id. " Id (quoting Phillips Phillipe v. Amoco Oil Oil Co., 799 14 14 F.2d 1464, 1464, 1472 1472 (11th Cir. 1986), (nth Cir. denied, 481 U.S. 1016 (1987)). Thus, Guam allows for the 1986), cert. denied, 15 15 16 waiver of of Section 6105(b) conflicts by the silence of of the party who sits on his right to to object. object. Id. Id 16

17 17 at,r29. 1] 29.88

18 In his Answer, Judge Tolentino raised the issue of of timeliness, timeliness, stating stating "[t]hat "[t]hat neither neither Mr. Mr. 19 of the Attorney General had ever Moylan nor the Office of ever challenged challenged or or obi objected to to me presiding 20 over this case until the statement of objection and motion to disqualify... " Answer Answer atat'll ,r 9. That is 21 22 to say, the to say, and Mr. the OAG and since their knew since Moylan knew Mr. Moylan their meeting meeting in in December December 2022, 2022, that that Judge Judge 22

23 Tolentino would be assigned assigned to preside over over criminal criminal cases cases which which Mr. Mr. Moylan, as as the Attorney

24 General of Guam, would bring in the name of of the the People People of ofGuam. Guam. Despite Despite its its urging urging that that the 25

27 s8 See also, Charette Clarette v. v. Charette, Clarette, 60 A.3d 1264, 1264, 1270-1271 (Maine 2013)Gudge 20l3)(judge hadhad hired a party's party's brother-in-law brother-in-law to do construction construction work work for for him him and and his daughter was close friends friends with with the the same same party's party's daughter, opposing party should 28 have raised an objection based upon the appearance of impropriety before before the court court issued a judgment judgment unfavorable to him, the appellate court finding that the him; the facts facts were were known known to to the the party party because because they they occurred occurred over the course of twenty- seven seven years while all were living in the same same small community). People v. v. Camacho Criminal Case No. No. CF0527-24 Decision and Order Denying the OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and Motion to and Motion Disqualify to Disqualify Page 10 of20 20 1 Court apply the reasonable person standard who has "knowledge ofall "knowledge of all the the facts," facts," it is significant 2 that the description of the OAG does not challenge Judge Tolentino's description of aa meeting meeting held held between them 3 and their staff in in December, December, 2022, 2022, w4ere where the the judge judge and Mr. Mr. Moylan Moylan discussed discussed the the precise precise question question 4 of whether a conflict would exist "in [Mn Moylan's] election [Mr. Moylan's] election as as the the Attorney General and the 5

6 prosecution osecution of of criminal imina l cases ca ses before befor e the the undersigned" under signed" and nd "[i]t "[i]t was deter mined that the determined the

7 circumstances underlying circumstances underlying my my recusal recusal in matters that Mr. in matters Mr. Moylan Moylan was was aa lawyer lawyer no no longer longer existed." existed." 8 Answer at 'W Answer at ,-r,-r 6, 7. 9 Thus, it is uncontroverted that, since 2022, Mr. Moylan and the OAG knew knew that that Judge 10

11 Tolentino is Tolentino assigned by the Superior Court of Guam, is assigned Guam, applying the Administrative Administrative Rule, to preside preside

12 12 over criminal over criminal cases which are cases which brought in are brought of the name of the name in the the People People of of Guam Guam by by the the OAG, through OAG, through 13 13 Attorney General Moylan. Based upon the "silence-by-waiver" rule most most recently recently reiterated in 14 14 Wia, the OAG Win, OAG is barred from complaining-for the first complaining - for the first time in nearly two years since Mr. Mr. Moylan Moylan 15 15 assumed office assumed office - that that Judge Judge TTolentino olentino isis disqualified disqualified because of Mr. because of Mr. Moylan's Moylan's biological biological 16

17 relationship to Judge Tolentino's stepchildren. 9 Tolentino's stepchildren.9

18 Although Although the the Court Court finds that the the OAG OAG has has waived waived any right right to to object object to toJudge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's 19 qualifications to preside qualifications to preside over over matters matters in in which which the Office of the Attorney General and Attorney 1

20 General Moylan represent represent the People or or aa party, because the OAG continues continues to raise the issue of 21 the "relationship" between Attorney General Moylan and Judge Tolentino/his 22

23 spouse/stepchildren in in over over fifty fifty (50) criminal criminal cases cases assigned assigned to to Judge Tolentino, Tolentino, the Court now

24 addresses thesubstance addresses the substanceof ofthe theObjection. Objection. 25

27 99 See, See,this thisCourt's Court'sDecision Decision and and Order Order Denying Denying the OAG 's'sStatement StatementofofObjection ObjectionandandMotion MotiontotoDisqualify Disqualyjf in People 28 v. Ybanez, Ybanez, Superior Court of Guam Criminal Case Case No. CF0447-23 (Jun. (Jun. 12, 12, 2024), 2024), which which rejects rejects the the Objection Objection file filed therein by the OAG OAG asas procedurally defective. It is unknown why why the the OAG OAG fails fails to to acknowledge acknowledge or ordiscuss discuss Ybanez, Ybanez which reached a diametrically opposed conclusion to the decisions of the courts in which in Aguon and Taitingfong. Taitingfong. People People v. Camacho Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0527-24 Decision Decision and Order Denying and Order Denying the the OAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and andMotion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 11 of20 Page ll of20 1 c. C. Judge Tolentino Tolentino isis not not related related to to Attorney Attorney General Moylan either either by by consanguinity consanguinity or affinity affinity within within any any degree; degree; therefore, therefore, there there is is no no relationship relationship to to disclose under disclose 2 Guam Law Law oror the the Model Code. 3 The threshold question in determining threshold question determining whether Judge Tolentino Tolentino is disqualified disqualified under under 4 Section 6105(b)(5)(A) or or (B) (B) isis whether whether he he (or (or his his spouse) spouse) isis related related within within three three degrees to a 5

66 p a r t y t o the party the proceedi ng or proceeding or to to a llawyer a w yer to to the the proceedi ng . A fa proceeding. mi l i a l rel familial ma y be a ti onshi p may relationship

7 established by consanguinity or affinity. If established by by consanguinity, it is a relationship by 8 ties of blood; blood, if established by affinity, it exists between one spouse and the consanguinity of of the 9 other. 10 Thus, other." Thus, "consanguinity" "consanguinity" measures measures the the relationship relationship by blood and "affinity" measures the 10 relationship by marriage. manage. 1111 11

12 12 disqualification provisions The disqualification provisions of of Section Section 6105 6105 and and Canon Canon 33 of the the Model Model Code bar a

13 13 judge firm frompresiding presiding-over matters matters .where where the judge or or his his spouse spouse is within within three three degrees degrees of 14 14 relationship (e.g., ( consanguinity consanguinity or or affinity) to aa party affinity) to party or or aa lawyer lawyer in in the proceeding. 77 GCA the proceeding. GCA §§ 15 15 6105(d) 6105(d) provides that "[t]he provides that "[t]he degree degree of of relationship is calculated relationship is according to calculated according to the the civil civil law 16 16

17 system," 12 and "thi system,"12 rd degree "third deg ree of relationship" ati onshi p" isi s defined defi ned in i n the the Model Model Code Code as the the "g reat- "great-

18 grandparent, grandparent, parent, Lmole, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child, Child, grandchild, grandchild, great-grandchild, great-grandchild, 19 19 nephew or niece."5713 Neither Judge Tolentino nor hiss wife are related by blood or origin 20 (consanguinity) nor by marriage (affinity) to Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan as Mr. Moylan Moylan does does not 21 fall under any of of these relationships. 22

24 10 10 See, generally, 46 Am. Jr. ad Judges § 112 (Aug. 2024). See, generally, 46 Am. Jr. 2d Judges § 11 U Id. Id (citing Alabama State State Personnel Personnel Bd. Ba V. V. Garner, 4 So.3d So.3d 545 (Ala. Civ. App. Ct. 2008)). See also, Suggs v. State, State, 25 51 N.E.3d 1190, 1194 (Indiana 2016)("Related 20l6)("Related by by marriage" marriage" isis commonly commonlyreferred referredto to as as affinity, affinity, which which isis defined defined as 'the connection 'the connection existing existing in in consequence consequence of ofmarriage marriagebetween eachof betweeneach ofthe the married married persons persons and and the the kindred kindred ofof the other. 26 distinguished from It is distinguished from consanguinity, which denotes relationship relationship by by blood."')( blood."')(citation omitted). 12 See, 12 State Personnel Personnel Bd., Ba, supra ("The See, Alabama State ("The civil civil law law method method of of computing computing degrees degrees ofofkinship kinship is is to begin begin the th 27 count count with one of of the persons n question and proceed up to the common common ancestor ancestor and and then down down to to the other other person, calling it a degree for each person both ascending and and descending. descending. The' The number thus counted expresses the degree oof 28 kinship.")(iinding no duty to recuse kinship.")(finding recuse because because judge judge and and attorney attorney inin case case were were not not related related within the required degree). 13 See Model Code, Attachment A at p. 10 ("Terminology"). 13 See Model Code, Attachment A at p. 10 ("Terminology").

People People v. Camacho Criminal Criminal Case Case No. CF0527-24 Decision Decision and Order Denying and Order Denying the the OAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and andMotion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 12 12 of20 of20 1 Extending the "third "third degree of relationship" beyond that which is contained in the Model 2 Code to include relationship lationshqyby by affinity affinity (marriage), (marriage), Attorney General Moylan is not related by 3 affinity affinity to either Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino or the the judge's judge's spouse. spouse. The The "relationship" "relationship" between between Judge Judge 4 Tolentino and Attorney Attorney General General Moylan is best illustrated by the legal maxim of illustrated by of "ajinis "affinis Mei mei 5

6 ajinis affinis non est est mihi miniaffinis" anis or "A relative relative of of my my relative relative by bymarriage manage isis not not my relative." Suggs

7 v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190, 1194-1195 v. State, (Indiana 2016)(quoting 1194-1195 (Indiana 2016)(quoting Ballentine's Ballentine's Law Dictionary with 8 Pronunciations 45 (3d Pronunciations 45 (ad ed. l969)). 1969)). More More clearly clearly stated, stated, in in determining determining whether whether two persons persons are 9 related by affinity, or marriage, marriage, "the "the relationship relationship does does not not exist existwhere wheremore morethan thanone onemarriage manage is 10

111 required to to establish it." Johnson v. State, State, 169 Tex.Crim. 146, 146, 147, 332 S.W.2d 321, 322 (Tex.

12 12 Ct. Crim. App. 1960). Thus, Judge 1960). Thus, Judge Tolentino Tolentino is is not related related to to Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan within

13 any any degree of affinity or relationship. 14 14 Moreover, the dissolution of the marriage marriage between between Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's wife and Attorney 15 15 General Moylan Moylan over over twenty years ago also terminated the "affinity" "affinity" between between the the former spouses 16

17 resulting from such marriage. Herrera v. Hernandez, Hernandez, 80 CaLRptr.3d Cal.Rptr.3d 491, 491,494 (Cal. (Cal. Ct. Ct. App. 6th App. 6th

18 Dist. 2008)(dissolution of marriage dissolution of marriage terminates terminatesaffinity affinitybetween betweenparties partiesarising arisingfrom fromsuch suchmarriage manage 19 for purposes of determination determination of whether a juror juror is is subject subj et to challenge challenge for bias even if if the former 20 spouses have a child together). Consequently, while Judge Tolentino and his stepchildren enjoy together). Consequently, 21 a relationship of affinity in the first first degree degree to to each eachother otherby byvirtue virtueof ofthe thejudge's judge'smarriage manage to their 22 14 23 mother,14 thereisisabsolutely there absolutelyno no relationship relationship to to any any degree degree between between Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino and Attorney

24 General Moylan. Consequently, the provisions provisions of of Section 6105 6105 do do not not apply. 15 apply." 25

26 14 14 InInre reJoseph Joseph&&Sally Sally Grablich Grablich Trust, N.W.2d 517, Trust, 984 N.W.2d 517, 552-553 552-553 (Mich. (Mich. Ct. Ct. App. App. 2021)(citing BlissBliss v. Caille Caille Bros. Bros. 27 Co., l13 113N.W. N.W.317 317(Mich. (Mich.1907)("when 1907)("whena acouple couplemarries, marries,each eachspouse spouse becomes affinity to becomes related by affinity to the the other other spouse's blood relatives relatives by by the the same added)). same degree")(emphasis added)). 15 28 15 Attorney General Attorney GeneralMoylan Moylan isis not not aa "party" "party" to the criminal proceeding proceeding under under Section Section 6105(b)(5)(A), 6l05(b)(5)(A), but merely merely a representative of of the the People, who, along with with the the Defendant, are the only "party" "party" to to the the criminal criminalcase. case. See, See, People People v.

People People v. Camacho Camacho Criminal Criminal Case Case No.~ No.• CF0527-24 Decision Decision and Order Denying and Order Denying the theOAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 and Motion 6107 and Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 13 13 of20 1 D. The OAG OAGhas hasprovided providednonolegal legalauthority authoritynor norfactual factualaverments averments necessary necessary tO to establish a relationship requiring requiring disqualification disqualification or or recusal recusal under underSection Section 6105. 6105. 2

3 The OAG OAG relies relies heavily heavily on on the the decisions decisions in People vs. vs. Taitingfong, Taitingfong, Criminal Case No.

4 CF0024-24 (Jun. (Jun. 45 2024)(Ir*iarte,J.), 4, 2024)(Iriarte, J.), and in in People People vs. vs. San San Agustin, 2024 Guam Guam 22 in in support support of 5 its Objection. However, However, neither neither case case provides legal legal support support for for the the finding finding that that Judge Tolentino Judge Tolentino 6 is disqualified from presiding over cases in which the the OAG is involved, as both both can be be 7 16 distinguished from the case before this Court.16 8 Curiously, Curiously,Acting Acting Chief Prosecutor Rudolph fails

9 to cite or discuss this Court's Decision discuss this Decision and and Order OrderDenying Denyingthe the OAG OAG's's Statement Statement of Objection 77 10 GCA GCA §6]07And § 6107 AndMotion MotiontotoDisqualv DisqualifyininPeople Peoplevs. vs.Ybanez, Ybanez, Superior Court of Guam Guam Criminal 11 1 Case Case No. CF0447-23 CF044T-23 (Jun. 12, 2024) (Jun. 12, 2024) in in its Objection despite Ms, Rudolph despite Ms. having filed the Rudolph having the 12 12 Objection Objection in inthat that case case and being served sewed with with the 17 the Cou1"t's decisiondenying Court's decision denyingthe thesame. same." 13 13

14 14 1. San Agustin does not apply does not apply to the instant case. case.

15 15 The OAG OAG misapplies misapplies the the holding holding of ofthe the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court Court in San San Agustin, which which is is 16 16 largely procedural. procedural. Summarized in its most most simple simple form, form, the rule inSan San Agustin Agustin is that a judge 17 17 is disqualified who is disqualified from presiding presiding over over aa case case must must also also be disqualified disqualified from serving serving as as the the 18

19 recusal recusal judge in in the the same same case. case. San San Agustin at 1 36 at 1] 36 ("We ("We exercise our supervisory exercise our supervisory authority to

21 Robinson, 27 Misc.3d, Robinson, Misc.3d, 635, 637, 898 635, 637, 898N.Y.S.2d N.Y.S.2d438,439438, 439(Sup.Ct. (Sup.Ct.2010)("the only parties 20l0)("the only parties to to criminal criminal litigation litigationare are the th People, People, represented by the the district districtattorney attorrteyofofthe thecounty, county,and andthe theaccused, accused, represented represented by by assigned assigned or or retained retaine 22 counsel."); 5 counsel."), 5 GCA GCA §§ 30l.03("The 30103("The Attorney AttorneyGeneral General shallshall have have ... the right ... to the right bring action to bring action on on behalf behalf ofofGuam Gua representing the the citizens citizens asasaawhole wholefor forredress redressof grievanceswhich ofgrievances whichthethecitizens citizensindividually individuallycannot cannotachieve achieve....." ..... " As A 23 such, 6l05(b)((5)(A) such, Section 6105(b )((5)(A)does doesnotnotapply applybecause because Judge Tolentino is Judge Tolentino is not related within not related degrees to three degrees withinthree to a party. a party. 16 16 In both cases, the Defendant, not the OAG filed the Objection. Moreover, trial courts are not bound by the decisions In both cases, the Defendant, not he OAG filed the Objection. Moreover, trial courts are not bound by the decision 24 of other of other trial trial courts courts ruling rulingononthe thesame same issue; therefore, this issue; therefore, Court does this Court doesnotnot adopt adoptthe theruling ruling ininTainatongo. Tainatongo. Although Althoug Agustinis controlling San Agustin controllinglawlawininthis thisCourt, Court,ititisisinapplicable inapplicableininthis case this casebecause becauseititdoes does not not involve involvethe the circumstances circumstance 25 addressed by by the the Guam Guam Supreme SupremeCourtCourt in inSan Agustin. San Agustin. 17 See,Decision and Order Denying the OAG's Statement of Objection 7 GCA §6107 And Motion to Disqualyjf in 17 See, Decision and Order Denying the OAG's Statement of Objection 7 GCA § 6107 And Motion to Disqualify i 26 CF0447-23 (Jun. (Jun. 12, 12, 2024), 2024), which whichwaswas served served uponupon the the OAG OAG via Email on via Email on June June 12, 2021,Notice 12, 2021; Notice of ofEntry Entry on on Docket Docke of ofDecision Decision and Order Denying the OAG 's and Order Denying the OAG's Statement of Statement of Objection 7 GCA §6107 And Motion toDisqualyjz 7 GCA § 6107 And Motion to Disqualify (Jun (Jun 13, 13 27 which was 2024) which was served upon the served upon the OAG OAG via via mail mail on on June June 13, 2024. There 13, 2024. explanation for no explanation There isis no for the the glaring glaring omission omissio this Court"s of this Decision in Court's Decision in Ybanez Ybanez fromfrom thethe OAG's OAG's Objection, Objection, and Ms. Rudolph and Ms. Rudolph is is reminded reminded that Rule 3.3 that Rule 3.3 of of the th 28 Rulesof Guam Rules of Professional Professional Conduct Conduct mandates mandatesa alawyer lawyerpractice practicecandor candortoward towardthe thetribunal tribunalandandnotnotknowingly knowingly fai fail to disclose toto the the tribunal tribtuial legal legal authority authority in the controlling controlling jurisdiction knownto jurisdictionknown tothe the lawyer lawyerto to be be directly directlyadverse adverse to t position of the client. the position client. People People v. v. Camacho Camacho · Criminal Case No. CF0527-24 CF0527-24 Decision Decision and Order Denying and Order Denying the the OAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA§§6107 6107 and and Motion Motion .to Disqualify to Disqualify · Page 14 14 of20 1 disqualified judge clarify that a disqualified judge should should not not be be appointed appointed as as a recusal recusaljudge."). judge."). San San Agustin does 2 the OAG contends, not, as the contends, extend in any any way to support a finding that Judge Tolentino is 3 disqualified in the the instant instantcase caseor orin inall all cases casesinvolving involving Attorney General Moylan. Neither Neither that that 4 18 question nor one one remotely like itit was was before before the the Guam Guam Supreme Supreme Court inSan San Agustin. Agustin.18 5

6 2. The TheCourt's Court'sDecision Decision and Order in Ybanez applies here.

7 In In People People v. Ybanez et al., Superior Court of Guam v. Ybanez Guam Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0447-23 CF0447-23 (Jun. (Jun. 8 12, 12, 2024), this Court 2024), this Court rejected rejected the the OAG's OAG's Motion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino on on identical identical 9 19 grounds, finding: grounds, finding" 10

111 Judge Tolentino's Judge Tolentino's spouse spouse isis not not a party party to to the the proceeding, proceeding, or or an an officer, officer, director, director, or or trustee trustee of ofaa party. She is not acting as as aalawyer lawyer in inthe theproceeding; proceeding, 12 12 nor known known by by the the Judge Judge toto have have an an interest interest that that could could bebesubstantially substantially affected by thethe outcome outcome of of the the proceeding. proceeding. She is is not, not, to to the the Judge's Judge's 13 13 knowledge, likely to knowledge, to be be aa material material witness witness in in the the proceeding. proceeding. Therefore, 14 14 none none ofof these these circumstances applies to circumstances applies to Judge TolentinO to Judge Tolentino to invoke the the mandatory disclosure requirements mandatory disclosure requirementsof of Section Section 6106. 15 15 This Court Court ruled further further that that Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's prior prior recusals recusalsdue duetoto Mr. Mr. Moylan's Moylali's 16

17 biological biological relation relation to his his stepchildren stepchildren did did not not mandate mandate his his disqualification disqualification under under the the

18 circumstances, particularlywhere circumstances, particularly where there thereisisno noallegation allegation of of a conflict conflict other other than the mere than the mere fact of a 19 familial relationship relationship between Mr. Moylan Moylan and judge's stepchildren: and the judge's stepchildren: 20 ...[I]n ... [I]nconsidering consideringdisqualification disqualification under under Section 6105(a), 6l05(a), "what "whatmatters matters is 21 not 'actual bias,' but but the 'appearance of bias."' bias."'Van VanDox ,r 32, citing Dizon Dox1132, Dizon v. v. Super Super Cr., Ct., 1998 Guam 33,r118. 1998 Guam 8. InInevaluating evaluatingthe theOAG's OAG's claims, this Court 22 assumes assumes as astrue trueall allevidence evidence found found inin the the record record and andininthe theObjection, Objection, even 23

24 18 18 In InSan SanAgustin, Judge Tolentino voluntarily reused Agustin, Judge recusedhimself himselfrom fromhearing hearingthe thecriminal criminalmatter matterdue due to to aa close personal 25 relationship with both defendants in that case. case. As distinguished from the instant matter, the conflict involved parties to the criminal proceeding, not Attorney General Moylan, who is is not not aa party party in in this this case. See, fn. 15, 15, supra. More 26 importantly, San Agustin addressed whether Judge Judge Tolentino, Tolentino, who who had had previously previously recused reused himself himselffrom from presiding presiding over ove court case, was the trial court was also disqualified from sitting as the recusaljudge recusal judge in the same case. The Supreme Supreme CourtCourt simply 27 decided, decided, asas to Tolentino'srecusal Judge Tolentino's to Judge recusaldecision, decision, "Under "Under77GCAGCA§§6107, 6107,aadisqualified disqualified judge judge lacks lacks the the power power to to hear hea and determine the matter. OnceOnce disqualified, disqualified, aa judge judge can can take take no no action action,-- even even when when acting in a limited capacity as a 28 judge." The substantive question of disqualification involved facts very specific to Presiding Judge Alberto C. recusal judge." Lamorena Lamorena III III and and Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylanand, and, therefore, therefore, are are distinguished distinguished onon those facts from application application here. 19 19 The Court The Court incorporates incorporates its its Decision Decision in Ybanez herein as if fully set forth. Peoplev.v. Camac/'zo Camacho Criminal Case No.No. CF0527-24 Decision and Decision and Order Order Denying Denying the the OAG's OAG's Statement Statement of of Objection Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and and Motion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 15 15 of 20 of20 1, if if uncorroborated uncorroborated by additional additional evidence, and applies "the standard applies "th~ standard ofof a "reasonable 'reasonable person' who who knows knows all allthethefacts, facts,and andunderstands understands the contexts 2 of ofthe jurisdictions, parties, parties,and andcontroversies controversiesinvolved involved..." ... "Id ,r 32, quoting Id.1132, 3 Ada v.v. Gutierrez, 2000 Guam 22 ,r,r 12-13. 22111] 12-13. Moreover,"[a] Moreover, "[a] court should not hypothesize about hypothesize about what the reasonable person would believe only upon the reasonable person would believe upon the 4 moving party's party's allegations. allegations. Instead, Instead, itit should should decide decide what what thethe reasonable reasonable person would would believe about a judge's judge's partiality given given all all the relevant facts the relevant 5 in the controversy." controversy."Ada ,r Ada1112. .*** 6 *** 7 In In the instant case, case, the thenon-disclosure non-disclosureof of the the relationship relationship complained complained ofof by 8 the Office of the of the the Attorney Attorney General General did did not not fall fall within within the the specific specific disqualification provisions of disqualification provisions of 7 7 GCA GCA §§ 6105(b), 6105(b); therefore, therefore, Judge Tolentino Judge Tolentino 9 was not required to disclose and any waivers or and seek any or agreements from the parties under Section 6016. 6016. As such, such, the Court DENIES the Objection of 10 10 the OAG OAG to 20 to Judge Tolentino's competency Judge Tolentino's these grounds. competency on these grounds." 11 11

12 3. Under Underanan"objectively "objectivelyreasonable reasonableperson" person" standard standard and and considering considering the American Bar Association's Formal Opinion Association's Formal 488, Judge Tolentino was not Opinion 488, Judge Tolentino was not required required to to 13 13 disqualify disqualify himself himselfin in this this case. case. 14 14 Finally, Finally, the the Court Court addresses the "objectively addresses the "objectively reasonable reasonable person" person"standard standard requirement in 15 15 16 viewing the the disqualification disqualification question question in this case. case. The OAG OAGcorrectly correctlystates states the the legal legalstandard standard 16

17 17 applicable in determining whether a judge judge must must be be disqualified disqualified under underthe theprovisions provisionsof of Section

18 6105, 6105, quoting San Agustin: "A "Acourt courtshould shouldnot nothypothesize hypothesizeabout about what what the the reasonable reasonable person person 19 19 would believe about a judge's would judge's partiality partiality given given all all the relevant relevantfaets facts in in the the controversy. controversy ... Under Under 20 this objective test, ... 'the court court asks whether aa person asks whether personwith withknowledge knowledge of of all the facts would 21 an perceive aa significant significant risk risk that that the judge will willresolve .resolvethe thecase caseon onaabasis basis other other than than the merits. merits.'" 22

23 Objection at p.. 44 (quoting San San Agustin Agustin atatno Jr 23)(emphasis added). Judge 23)(emphasis added). Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's detailed

24 24 Answer provides relevant relevant facts facts establishing establishing that that no close close personal personal relationship relationship exists between 25 himself and Attorney General and Attorney General Moylan, Moylan, nor between betweenJudge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's wife wife and Mr. Moylan. and Mr. Moylan. The 26

20 20 See, Ybanez at pp. 13-15. See, Ybanez at pp. 13-15. People People v. Camacho . Criminal Case Case No. CF0527-24 Decision and Decision and Order Order Denying Denying the OAG's Statement the OAG's of Objection Statement of GCA § Objection77GCA andMotion 6107 and § 6107 Motion to toDisqualify Disqualify Page Page 16 of20 1 1 OAG'sObjection OAG's Objectiononly onlydeclares, declares,without withoutciting citingspecific specificfacts, facts,that thataaclose closepersonal personal relationship relationship 2 exists. exists. 3 its Formal In its Formal Opinion Opinion 488 488 (Sept. 5, 5, 2019), 2019), the the American American Bar Bar Association, Association, considering considering 4 5 judges' obligation obligation to to disqualify disqualify themselves themselves in proceedings they have proceedings in which they have social social or close 5

6 6 with the lawyers personal relationships with lawyers or or parties parties other otherthan than aa spousal, spousal, domestic partner or other

7 close family relationship, looks to relationship, looks to Rule Rule 2.11 2.11 of of the the Model Model Code of of Judicial Conduct("Model Judicial Conduct ("Model 8 Code") requiring Code") requiring disqualification disqualification "because "because their their impartiality impartiality might might reasonably reasonably be questioned." questioned." 9 FormalOp. ABA Formal Op-488 488atat11(Sept. (Sept.5,5,2019)(citing 2019)(citingN.Y. n.y. Jud. Adv. op. Op. 11-125, 11-125, 2011 2011 WL 8333125 10

111 1 *4 *4 (Oct. (Oct. 27, 27, 2011). 2011 InIn this this regard, the ABA ABA opined opinedthat that "Judges "Judges are are ordinarily in in the best position

12 12 to assess whether their assess whether their impartiality impartiality might reasonably be questioned when lawyers or parties with

13 13 whom they they have relationships...appear beforethem." relationships ... appear before them."Id. Id. However, However, the the ABA notes that "in notes that 14 14 smaller communities and and relatively relatively sparsely-populated judicial judicial districts, judges may districts, judges may have have social 15 15 and personal personal contacts contacts with with lawyers and and parties that are are unavoidable. unavoidable. In that circumstance, circumstance, too 16 16

17 17 strict strict aa disqualwcation disqualification standard standard would would be be impractical impractical to to enforce enforce and and would would potentially disrupt

18 the administration of justice." Formal ofjustice." Formal Op. Op. 488 488 at at 22 (emphasis added). The (emphasis added). The ABA ABA also also recognized 19 19 . . . cs . . . . that over time relationships change change "or mayhave or may haveended endedsufficiently sufficientlyfar farininthe thepast pastthat that itit is is not a 20 current concern when current concern when viewed viewed objectively." objectively." Id. Id. "Finally, "Finally, judges judges must must avoid avoid disqualifying disqualifying 21 22 themselves too quickly or or too too often oftenlest lestlitigants litigantsbe beencouraged encouraged to to use use disqualification disqualification motions motions as as 22

23 a means meansof ofjudge-shopping, or other judges in the same same court court...become ... overburdened." Id. overburdened." Id.

24 The Formal Opinion Opinion tracks tracks the rationaleof ofSan San Agustin, whereinthe the Guam Supreme Court 25 declared, "Our "Our recusal recusal statute statute promotes fairness by avoiding avoiding the the appearance appearance of bias, but a party's party's 26 one-sided perception of of an an appearance of bias appearance of biasisisnot notgrounds groundsfor fordisqualification." disqualification."San San Agustin Agustin at at 27

28 r ll 25. 25. The OAG OAG advances advances its Objection solely on on a "familial "familial relationship" relationship" and by Chief and a claim by

People People v. Camacho Criminal Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0527-24 Decision Decision and and Order Denying the Order Denying the OAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and andMotion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 17 of20 Page 17 of20 1 Prosecutor Rudolph that Prosecutor Rudolph that this this relationship relationship isis "significant "significant and and continuing" continuing" without without any facts facts 2 presented to to illustrate illustrate this thls condition. condition. This Thls is simply not enough. enough. 3 Adopting Adopting the the recommendations recommendations of the ABA ABAininits itsFormal FormalOpinion Opinion488, 488,and, and, based based on on the 4 objective objective reasonable reasonable person person standard andconsidering standard and consideringthe theAnswer Answer filed filed bY by Judge Tolentino and Judge Tolentino and 5

6 the judicial community the judicial community and thelack andthe lack of of factual factual support supportprovided providedby bythe theOAG, OAG, as as well as as the the 7 context in which the disqualification is sought, the Court sought, the Courtmakes makesthe thefollowing following findings: findings: 8 1. Other Otherthan thanthe the mere fact of a biological biological relationship between betweenAttorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan 9 and Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolenti'no's stepchildren, stepchildren,there thereisisno no credible credible evidence evidence of any any relationship 10 10

11 - within withinthree three degrees degrees or or otherwise - between between Mr. Mr. Moylan Moylanand and Judge Tolentino. Judge Tolentino.

12 2. The circumstances since October, 2022 under under which Judge Tolentino disqualified disqualified 13 himself voluntarily voluntarily have changed, changed, and and there is no evidence evidence to to contradict contradict Judge 14 14 Tolentin0's description Tolentino's description of the meeting between the meeting between Attorney Attorney General GeneralMoylan, Moylan, the theAG's AG's 15 15 staff, Judge Tolentino and court Judge Tolentino courtstaff staff affirming affirming that that any anyconflict conflict relating to to the the familial familial 16

17 association which previously existed between Judge Tolentino and Attorney General Judge Tolentino

18 Moylan Moylan "no "no longer longer existed," existed,"therefore, therefore, Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino is is not not required required to disqualify 19 19 hirnselfunder himself under Section Section 6105, 6105; 20 3. Neither Neither Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino nor nor his his spouse (as the spouse (as the former former wife wife of of Attorney Attorney General General 21 Moylan) Moylan)are are within withinthe the third third degree degree of ofrelationship relationship to to any any party party to the proceeding nor 22

- 23 to anyone acting as a lawyer lawyer in the proceeding, as there there is is no no legal authority authority cited by 24 the OAG OAG which which affirms affirms aarelationship relationship within within three three degrees degrees after after the termination of a 25 marriage, which is a relationship relationshipby by affinity; affinity, 26 4. Attorney General General Moylan is not a "party" "party" to to the proceeding, but a representative of the proceeding, 27

28 the People of ofGuam Guam in in matters the name matters brought in the nameof of the the People People of Guam, Guam;

People People v. Camacho v. Camacho Criminal Case CF0527-24 Case No. CFO527-24 Decision Decision and and Order Denying the Order Denying OAG's Statement the OAG's of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and andMotion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 18 of20 Page 18 of20 1 5. Attorney AttorneyGeneral GeneralMoylan Moylanand and Mrs. Mrs. Tolentino's Tolentino'schildren childrenare are now now grown grown adults living adults living 2 on their their own, own, which which poses poses aasignificant significantchange changeininrelationships relationships distancing distancing Judge Judge 3 Tolentino from Attorney General Moylan, General Moylan; 4 6. There Thereisisno noevidence evidenceofofaa"close "closepersonal personalrelationship" relationship"between betweenMr. Mr.Moylan Moylanand and Judge Judge 5

6 Tolentino requiring requiring disqualification disqualification under under Section 6105 or the 6105 or theModel Model Code; Code,

7 7. InInthis thissmall smalllegal legalcommunity communityininGuam Guamand and with with aa trial court bench benchconsisting consistingonly only of of 8 four (4) dedicated dedicated criminal court dockets, requiring Judge JudgeTolentino, Tolentino, who is one of the 9 four (4) (4) judges judges assigned assigned to to the the criminal criminal docket, docket, to to disqualify disqualify himself himselfpursuant pursuant to 10

111 Section Section 6105 from all cases 6105 from cases in in which which Attorney Attorney General Moylan Moylan represents the People represents the People

12 12 of Guam Guam would (a) be be impractical impractical to enforce, enforce, (b) negatively negatively impact impact the the efficient 13 administration ofjustice, administration of justice, and (c) c) lead leadtotojudge-shopping judge-shoppingand/or and/ overburden overburden other 14 14 21 the same judges in the samecourt. court." 15 15 Having Having made made the following following findings, findings, the theCourt Court finds finds that that Judge Judge Tolentino is not required 16

17 17 to disqualify disqualify himself himselfunder under Section Section 6105(a) 6105(a) and and rejects rejects the the OAG's OAG'sObj section. Objection.

19 21 Indeed, the filing by the OAG of over fifty (50) identical Objections to Judge Tolentino's assignment in criminal 21 Indeed, the filing by the OAG of over fifty (50) identical Objections to Judge Tolentino's assignment in crimina 20 20 cases has had cases has had aa significant negative impact on the the caseload caseload of ofthe the three three remaining remaining dedicated dedicated criminal criminal courts. courts. For Fo example, example, asserted asserted speedy trial cases in which Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentino was was assigned assigned pursuant pursuant totothe theAdministrative Administrative Rule Rule were 21 21 reassigned reassigned to to other criminal judges due criminal judges due toto the the running running of of the the speedy trial clock. In speedy trial In CF270-24, CF270-24, People v. Michael Michae Gregory Gregory RosaL Rosal, this Court was assigned assigned to to take take the the matter matterto totrial trial with with only four four days days remaining remaining on on his his speedy trial 22 See. Min. clock. See. Aug.2,2,2024 Min. ofofAug. 2024Hrg. Hrg.atat9:22:26 9:22:26AM. AM.On On August August2,2,2024,2024,despite despitethat thatthe thematter matterhad had been been pending pendin before Judge before Judge Tolentino Tolentino since since May 24, 2024, and the Defendant having May 24, 2024, and the Defendant having asserted asserted his right right to speedy trial on to speedy trial on June June 21, 23 2024, the People 2024, the People were unprepared unpreparedfor fortrial trialand andfailed failed to to file file any any witness lists by the Pre-trial Conference. On On August Augus 2, 2024, the People 2024, the People filed filed a Memorandum SupportingPeople's Memorandum Supporting People's Motion Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice in in the Interest oof 24 andthe Justice and Courtgranted theCourt grantedthe thedismissal dismissalbutbuthas hasreserved reservedon onthetheissue issueofofwhether whetherititwill will be be dismissed dismissed with with or withou without prejudice. Id. The TheCourt Courtexpresses expresses grave grave concern concern about whether whetherthese theseObjections Objectionshave havebeen beenfiled filedbybythe theOAG OAG in good 25 faith. In In at at least least one one case case assigned to this Court, People People of ofGuam Guam v. v. Prima Prima Sebastian, Sebastian, Criminal Case No. CF0506-24,CF0506-24 the Objection, Objection, filed filedononJuly July29, 29, 2024, 2024, was pending this Court's Court's determination as as recusaljudge recusal judge(see (seeNtc. Ntc. of Assignment Assignmen 26 of Recusal of Recusal Judge (Jul.31, Judge (Jul. 31,2024) 2024)and andCRl.1 CR1.lForm Form33(Aug.(Aug. 1, l, 2024)) when the People filed 2024)) when filed aa Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss on o August 12, 2024. 2024. Despite Despite the the August August 12,12,2024, 2024,Motion Motion to to Dismiss, Dismiss, on August 13, 2024, 2024, thethePeople People filed filed aa Response 27 to Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's Answer. Answer.OneOnemight mightcontemplate contemplatethat that perhaps perhaps the the assigned assignedprosecutor prosecutorfiled filed the theMotion Motion to Dismiss Chief Prosecutor without Chief Prosecutor Rudolph being aware aware of of the the Motion Motion when she shefiled filed the the Response. Response.However, However, Chief ChiefProsecutor 28 filed both Rudolph filed the Motion both the Motionto toDismiss Dismisson onAugust August12, 12,2024, 2024,and and the the Response Response on on August August 13, 13, 2024. 2024. Magistrate Judge JonathanQuan Judge Jonathan Quangranted grantedthe theMotion Motiontoto Dismiss Dismiss on on August August 13, 13, 2024. 2024. Order Order (Re:(Re: Dismissal Dismissal Without Withou Prejudice)(Aug. Prejudice)(Aug. 13, 13, 2024). 2024). People v. Camacho Criminal Case No. CF0527-24 CF0527-24 Decision Decision and Order Denying and Order Denying the theOAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and Motion to and Motion to Disqualify Disqualify Page 19 19 of20 1 CONCLUSION 2 Although this Court finds .Although finds that the OAG has failed to to raise raise the the issue issue of of Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's 3 ~ t·

disqualification disqualificationtimely timelyand andtherefore thereforehas has Waived waived any right to advance itit now, even even if if it were raised 4 at the the earliest earliest practicable practicable time, time, no disqualifying disqualifying facts facts exist exist to to support support Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's 5

6 disqualification disqualification in cases cases involving Attorney Attorney General Moylan and/or the Office of the Attorney

7 General. General. This This Court Court finds finds that that Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino is is not not disqualified disqualified under under 77 GCA GCA §§ 6105(b)(5)(A) 1

6105(b)(5)(A) 8 or (B) or Canon 3 of of the the Model Model Code from from presiding presiding over this case on the grounds that he he has any 9 familial association with Attorney Attorney General General Moylan. Moylan. Notwithstanding Notwithstanding Attorney Attorney General General Moylan's Moylan's 10 10

11 biological relationship to to Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's stepchildren stepchildren and and former formermarriage manage toto Mrs. Tolentino,

12 12 neither Judge Tolentino nor his wife are related within within three degrees degrees to to Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan

13 13 either by affinity or consanguinity, regardless of whether Mr. Mr. Moylan is a party to the litigation 14 14 (which he is not) or appearing as a lawyer for a party. 15 15 For the reasons reasons stated stated herein, herein, the the OAG's OAG's Statement of Objection and Motion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify 16 16

17 17 is REJECTED and the Motion is is DENIED. DENIED. This This case case shall shall be be returned returned to Judge Judge Tolentino for

is 18 disposition. further disposition. 19 S0 SO ORDERED ORDERED this 30th day of of August, 2024. . 20 '

22 BLE MARIA T. CENZON 23 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 24 SERVICEvIA seavlce VIKE-MAll E-MML II ukno lndguthat acknowledge aman anelectl'onic elndo lu 25 "FY mpy~ginal arlymuhs -nuNdm: VlaSe-mail~ to: - H?~,.nwc_,. ~,.l'Ul,c=- . 26

27 bq»nyclm¢.su aurlolGlnm

People People v. v. Camacho Camacho Criminal Case No. CF0527-24 CF0527-24 Decision Decision and Order Denying and Order Denying the theOAG's OAG's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 and Motion 6107 and Motion to to Disqualify Disqualify Page 20 of 20