r-•1•L t.r--,-,U r CLERf< OF COURT
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6
7 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0705-25 8 Plaintiff, 9 vs. DECISION AND ORDER
11 JERRY NAUTA CAMACHO 12 Defendant. 13
14 INTRODUCTION 15 Two trips to the same store, two alleged thefts, and now two legal questions. The People 16 charge these incidents as separate felony counts. Defendant Camacho argues they reflect a 17 single course of conduct and that the government has not met its discovery obligations. These 18 disputes require the court to address both double-jeopardy principles and the scope of 19 mandatory disclosure. This order resolves both issues. Attorney Heather Quitugua represents 20 Defendant Camacho. Present for the People of Guam was Assistant Attorney General Neil 21 Bonavita. 22
23 BACKGROUND
24 This criminal case stems from alleged retail-theft activity at a Tamuning retai 25 establishment and the parties' ensuing discovery obligations. On October 4, 2025, the People o 26 Guam commenced this action by charging Defendants Jerry Nauta Camacho, Renee San Agusti 27 Bermudes, and Christopher John Pinon of two counts of Retail Theft (as a third-degree felony). 28 Decision and Order CF0705-25; The People of Guam vs. Jerry Nau ta Camacho
See, Mag. Compl., (Oct. 4, 2025). The complaint alleges that on or about September 21, 2025,
2 each knowingly took merchandise from Happy Mart in Tamuning valued at more than $500 bu
3 less than $1,500, with the intent to permanently deprive the merchant of its property, in violatio 4 of 9 G.C.A. §§ 43.91(a), 43.20(b), 43.30(a), and 4.60. Id. 5 A grand jury later returned an Indictment on October 14, 2025. See, Indictment, (Oct. 14, 6
7 2025). The Indictment alleges that on or about October 2, 2025, defendants Camacho an
8 Bermudes each committed two counts of Retail Theft by Complicity (as third-degree felonies) b
9 promoting or assisting the commission of retail theft and inducing or aiding co-defendant Pinon
to commit the offense. Id. It further charges Finona with two counts of Retail Theft (as third 11 degree felonies) for knowingly taking merchandise from Happy Mart, Tamuning, value 12
13 between $500 and $1,500, with the intent to permanently deprive the merchant. Id. All counts ar
14 alleged to violate 9 G.C.A. §§ 43.91(a), 43.20(b), 43.30(a), and 4.60. Id. 15 The court set the matter for trial and issued case-management orders govemm 16 discovery. On December 19, 2025, the court entered a Criminal Trial Setting Order requiring the 17 parties to exchange mutual discovery on or before December 31, 2025. See. Criminal Tria 18
19 Setting Order (Dec. 19, 2025).
20 The Defendant stated that, he received police reports GPD Nos. 25-24891 (40 pages) an 21 25-24879 (34 pages), but no photographs, no surveillance footage referenced in the reports, an 22 no Laxamana materials. See Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Compel (Jan. 6, 2026). Defense counse 23 represents that she previously requested production of surveillance footage referenced in police 24
25 report 25-24879 at page 19, photographs referenced in that report, recordings of witness
26 questioning, and any plea agreements or understandings with witnesses. Id. 27
Page2of6 Decision and Order CF0705-25; The People of Guam vs. Jeny Nauta Camacho
On January 6, 2026, Defendant Camacho, filed the present Brief in Support of Motion to
2 Compel Discovery, seeking an order requiring the government to disclose additional materials,
3 including surveillance footage, photographs, witness statements, expert materials, an 4 exculpatory or impeachment information. Id. On January 6, 2026, Defendant Camacho filed 5 Motion to Sever. On January 22, 2026 the People did not oppose severing the case and the Cou 6
7 granted Defendant Camacho's motion to sever.
9 DISCUSSION
This order proceeds in two parts. First, it addresses Defendant Camacho's double- 11 jeopardy argument and explains why the two retail-theft counts arise from separate acts under 12
13 People v. Afaisen and the Millard/Acey framework. Second, it turns to Defendant's motion to
14 compel and clarifies the People's continuing disclosure obligations under 8 GCA Chapter 70, 15 including the production-or specific accounting-of materials referenced in police reports and 16 otherwise discoverable under Guam law and Brady. 17 I. The Two Retail-Theft Counts Are Based on Separate Acts. 18
19 The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to Guam by the
20 Organic Act of Guam, provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice 21 put in jeopardy of life or limb. People v. Afaisen, 2016 Guam 31112. The Guam Supreme Cou 22 in Afaisen adopted and applied the Millard/Acey factors to determine whether takings are part o 23
24 the same transaction or constitute separate criminal acts. Id. 46-48. Those factors are: th
25 location of the items taken; the lapse of time between the takings; the general and specific inten 26 of the taker; the number of owners of the items taken; and whether intervening events occurred. 27 Id. Applying those factors in Afaisen, the court concluded that the robbery and vehicle theft wer 28
Page 3 of6 Decision and Order CF0705-25; The People of Guam vs. Jeny Nau ta Camacho
part of one uninterrupted episode: the property was taken from the same victim, at the sam
2 location, within moments, and pursuant to a single objective. Id. 50-52. Because the conduct was
3 unitary, the theft-of-a-vehicle conviction had to be dismissed. Id. 4 Here, the Magistrate's Complaint and supporting declaration do not describe a single, 5 uninterrupted theft. It alleges that Defendant Camacho twice participated in retail-theft episodes 6 at Happy Mart in Tamuning, each completed and separated in time. The declaration describes 7
8 two distinct incidents on September 21, 2025 involving the same suspects and vehicle, but no
9 the same criminal episode. In the later incident, occurring between approximately 5: 17 p.m. an
5:24 p.m., store staff observed co-defendant Christopher John Finona exit Happy Mart with 11 shopping cart containing four cases of Ox & Palm corned beef, valued at $715.96, withou 12
13 paying. Staff recovered the merchandise from a blue Toyota Tercel, license plate PIT5304,
14 operated by Camacho and parked outside the store. When confronted, Camacho remained wit
15 the vehicle while Finona and Bermudes fled. Camacho later admitted he drove the suspects to th 16 store, waited in the vehicle while the theft occurred, and transported the stolen merchandis 17 afterward.The declaration also describes an earlier incident that same day in which Pinon 18
19 loaded three cases of Ox & Palm corned beef, valued at $536.97, into a cart while Bermudes
20 concealed the items with her jacket. They exited without paying and placed the merchandise i 21 Camacho's vehicle. Bermudes later admitted the items were sold in Dededo and that th 22 proceeds were used for gasoline and methamphetamine. Camacho likewise admitted he drove th 23 group to Happy Mart and transported the stolen goods on that occasion. 24
25 Although both incidents occurred at the same store and involved the same merchant, the
26 allegations reflect two separate store visits, two separate removals of merchandise, and two 27 completed thefts. Unlike Afaisen, where the thefts occurred within moments as part of on 28
Page 4 of6 Decision and Order CF0705-25; The People of Guam vs. Jeny Nau ta Camacho
continuous episode, the allegations here describe thefts separated by time. Each incident require
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
r-•1•L t.r--,-,U r CLERf< OF COURT
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6
7 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0705-25 8 Plaintiff, 9 vs. DECISION AND ORDER
11 JERRY NAUTA CAMACHO 12 Defendant. 13
14 INTRODUCTION 15 Two trips to the same store, two alleged thefts, and now two legal questions. The People 16 charge these incidents as separate felony counts. Defendant Camacho argues they reflect a 17 single course of conduct and that the government has not met its discovery obligations. These 18 disputes require the court to address both double-jeopardy principles and the scope of 19 mandatory disclosure. This order resolves both issues. Attorney Heather Quitugua represents 20 Defendant Camacho. Present for the People of Guam was Assistant Attorney General Neil 21 Bonavita. 22
23 BACKGROUND
24 This criminal case stems from alleged retail-theft activity at a Tamuning retai 25 establishment and the parties' ensuing discovery obligations. On October 4, 2025, the People o 26 Guam commenced this action by charging Defendants Jerry Nauta Camacho, Renee San Agusti 27 Bermudes, and Christopher John Pinon of two counts of Retail Theft (as a third-degree felony). 28 Decision and Order CF0705-25; The People of Guam vs. Jerry Nau ta Camacho
See, Mag. Compl., (Oct. 4, 2025). The complaint alleges that on or about September 21, 2025,
2 each knowingly took merchandise from Happy Mart in Tamuning valued at more than $500 bu
3 less than $1,500, with the intent to permanently deprive the merchant of its property, in violatio 4 of 9 G.C.A. §§ 43.91(a), 43.20(b), 43.30(a), and 4.60. Id. 5 A grand jury later returned an Indictment on October 14, 2025. See, Indictment, (Oct. 14, 6
7 2025). The Indictment alleges that on or about October 2, 2025, defendants Camacho an
8 Bermudes each committed two counts of Retail Theft by Complicity (as third-degree felonies) b
9 promoting or assisting the commission of retail theft and inducing or aiding co-defendant Pinon
to commit the offense. Id. It further charges Finona with two counts of Retail Theft (as third 11 degree felonies) for knowingly taking merchandise from Happy Mart, Tamuning, value 12
13 between $500 and $1,500, with the intent to permanently deprive the merchant. Id. All counts ar
14 alleged to violate 9 G.C.A. §§ 43.91(a), 43.20(b), 43.30(a), and 4.60. Id. 15 The court set the matter for trial and issued case-management orders govemm 16 discovery. On December 19, 2025, the court entered a Criminal Trial Setting Order requiring the 17 parties to exchange mutual discovery on or before December 31, 2025. See. Criminal Tria 18
19 Setting Order (Dec. 19, 2025).
20 The Defendant stated that, he received police reports GPD Nos. 25-24891 (40 pages) an 21 25-24879 (34 pages), but no photographs, no surveillance footage referenced in the reports, an 22 no Laxamana materials. See Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Compel (Jan. 6, 2026). Defense counse 23 represents that she previously requested production of surveillance footage referenced in police 24
25 report 25-24879 at page 19, photographs referenced in that report, recordings of witness
26 questioning, and any plea agreements or understandings with witnesses. Id. 27
Page2of6 Decision and Order CF0705-25; The People of Guam vs. Jeny Nauta Camacho
On January 6, 2026, Defendant Camacho, filed the present Brief in Support of Motion to
2 Compel Discovery, seeking an order requiring the government to disclose additional materials,
3 including surveillance footage, photographs, witness statements, expert materials, an 4 exculpatory or impeachment information. Id. On January 6, 2026, Defendant Camacho filed 5 Motion to Sever. On January 22, 2026 the People did not oppose severing the case and the Cou 6
7 granted Defendant Camacho's motion to sever.
9 DISCUSSION
This order proceeds in two parts. First, it addresses Defendant Camacho's double- 11 jeopardy argument and explains why the two retail-theft counts arise from separate acts under 12
13 People v. Afaisen and the Millard/Acey framework. Second, it turns to Defendant's motion to
14 compel and clarifies the People's continuing disclosure obligations under 8 GCA Chapter 70, 15 including the production-or specific accounting-of materials referenced in police reports and 16 otherwise discoverable under Guam law and Brady. 17 I. The Two Retail-Theft Counts Are Based on Separate Acts. 18
19 The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to Guam by the
20 Organic Act of Guam, provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice 21 put in jeopardy of life or limb. People v. Afaisen, 2016 Guam 31112. The Guam Supreme Cou 22 in Afaisen adopted and applied the Millard/Acey factors to determine whether takings are part o 23
24 the same transaction or constitute separate criminal acts. Id. 46-48. Those factors are: th
25 location of the items taken; the lapse of time between the takings; the general and specific inten 26 of the taker; the number of owners of the items taken; and whether intervening events occurred. 27 Id. Applying those factors in Afaisen, the court concluded that the robbery and vehicle theft wer 28
Page 3 of6 Decision and Order CF0705-25; The People of Guam vs. Jeny Nau ta Camacho
part of one uninterrupted episode: the property was taken from the same victim, at the sam
2 location, within moments, and pursuant to a single objective. Id. 50-52. Because the conduct was
3 unitary, the theft-of-a-vehicle conviction had to be dismissed. Id. 4 Here, the Magistrate's Complaint and supporting declaration do not describe a single, 5 uninterrupted theft. It alleges that Defendant Camacho twice participated in retail-theft episodes 6 at Happy Mart in Tamuning, each completed and separated in time. The declaration describes 7
8 two distinct incidents on September 21, 2025 involving the same suspects and vehicle, but no
9 the same criminal episode. In the later incident, occurring between approximately 5: 17 p.m. an
5:24 p.m., store staff observed co-defendant Christopher John Finona exit Happy Mart with 11 shopping cart containing four cases of Ox & Palm corned beef, valued at $715.96, withou 12
13 paying. Staff recovered the merchandise from a blue Toyota Tercel, license plate PIT5304,
14 operated by Camacho and parked outside the store. When confronted, Camacho remained wit
15 the vehicle while Finona and Bermudes fled. Camacho later admitted he drove the suspects to th 16 store, waited in the vehicle while the theft occurred, and transported the stolen merchandis 17 afterward.The declaration also describes an earlier incident that same day in which Pinon 18
19 loaded three cases of Ox & Palm corned beef, valued at $536.97, into a cart while Bermudes
20 concealed the items with her jacket. They exited without paying and placed the merchandise i 21 Camacho's vehicle. Bermudes later admitted the items were sold in Dededo and that th 22 proceeds were used for gasoline and methamphetamine. Camacho likewise admitted he drove th 23 group to Happy Mart and transported the stolen goods on that occasion. 24
25 Although both incidents occurred at the same store and involved the same merchant, the
26 allegations reflect two separate store visits, two separate removals of merchandise, and two 27 completed thefts. Unlike Afaisen, where the thefts occurred within moments as part of on 28
Page 4 of6 Decision and Order CF0705-25; The People of Guam vs. Jeny Nau ta Camacho
continuous episode, the allegations here describe thefts separated by time. Each incident require
2 a renewed decision to steal and a renewed decision by Camacho to facilitate the theft by drivin
3 and transporting the goods. That reflects separate criminal impulses rather than a singl 4 uninterrupted scheme. The presence of intervening events further distinguishes this case fro 5 Afaisen. Between the two thefts, the group left the store, transported the first set of stolen goods, 6 resold them in Dededo, and used the proceeds. Those acts mark the completion of one crimina 7
8 episode before the next began. In Afaisen, by contrast, the court found a continuing course o
9 conduct because the takings occurred at or near the same time, involved the same propert
owner, and were driven by one continuous objective .. Here, the allegations describe complete 11 thefts separated by time and intervening conduct, not an uninterrupted transaction. 12
13 The allegations therefore support two permissible units of prosecution, and the retail-thefi
14 counts do not violate double-jeopardy principles. 15 II. The People Have a Continuing Duty to Disclose and Produce Discovery 16 Defendant Camacho represents that, despite formal requests and prior discovery orders, 17 several categories of discovery have not been produced. Specifically, Defendant asserts that th 18
19 People have not produced the Happy Mart surveillance footage referenced in GPD Report No.
20 25-24879; photographs referenced in the police reports, including photographs of th 21 merchandise, vehicle, or scene; written or recorded witness statements, including any statements 22 provided to the Office of the Attorney General's Victim Services Division; criminal-histor 23 records (rap sheets) for prosecution witnesses other than the co-defendants; any expert reports o 24
25 expert disclosures; investigators' notes, recordings, or memoranda reflecting interviews o
26 interrogations (Laxamana materials); and documents and tangible objects referenced in th 27 reports such as custody receipts, fingerprints, photographic lineups, and other investigativ 28
Page 5 of6 Decision and Order CF0705-25; The People of Guam vs. Jerry Nau ta Camacho
materials. Defendant further asserts that Brady and Giglio material-including impeachmen
2 evidence, promises or inducements to witnesses, evidence of bias, prior false statements, or othe
3 credibility information-has not been produced or its existence has not been confirmed. 4 Pursuant to 8 GCA § 70.10 the Court orders the People to produce all discoverabl 5 material within their possession, custody, or control, including material known or that ma 6
become known through due diligence and material held by law enforcement or other agencies 7
8 acting on the prosecution's behalf. The People remain under a continuing duty to disclose an
9 any failure to comply may result in remedies under 8 GCA § 70.45. 10
11 CONCLUSION 12 Because the allegations describe two completed thefts separated by time and intervening 13 conduct, the charged counts represent permissible units of prosecution and do not offend 14 double-jeopardy principles. And because Guam's discovery statute imposes an affirmative and 15 continuing duty to disclose, the People must produce all discoverable material within their 16 possession, custody, or control-or state with specificity what does not exist and why. With 17 those clarifications, the court resolves the pending issues and directs the parties to proceed 18 consistent with this order. 19
20 IT IS SO ORDERED APR 2 2 2026 21
25 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam 26 Sl=:;/lVDCE 'IJQA 12-1\i1FJJ... I aclrnowledge that an electronic 27 copy of the original was e-mailed to:
28 _A{,,-r-1LJZ~~
Date:fh-¥J/,nme: lo ;s~ Page 6 of6
~~~~