People v. Del Rosario

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: January 14, 2022
• Docket: CM0478-20
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

§5=*='H it r-, 1 u I 3 I*

*J1i "" *LL n ! .E F ; SU. L.. main CUURT L1~y* GUAM

2022 J§E'

CLERK DF u RT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CM0478-20 GPD Report No. 20-28543 Plaintiff,

vs.

DECISION AND ORDER _RICARDO DANIEL DEL ROSARIO, aka GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION Richardo Daniel Del Rosario, aka "Rick", FOR CIVIL COMPROMISE aka"Cardo", DOB: 06/30/1987 -

Defendant.

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Honorable Dana A. Gutierrez based on Defendant Ricardo

Daniel -Del Rosario's ("Defendant") Motion for Civil Compromise tiled on August 26, 2021

("MotiOn"). Defendant is represented by Assistant Public Defender Kathleen A. Aguon and the

People of Guam (the "People) are represented by Assistant Attorney General Sean Brown.

Having reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the parties as well as applicable law, the

COurt now iSsues this Decision and Order GRANTING Defendant's Motion.

BACKGROUND

On November 13, 2020, Defendant was charged, by Magistrate's Complaint, with One

Count of Criminal Trespass (As a Petty Misdemeanor). Magistrate's Con pl. (Nov. 13, 2020). DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CIVIL COMPROMISE CM0478-20; People of Guam u Ricardo Daniel Del Rosan'o, aka Richardo Daniel Del Rosario, aka "Rick", aka "Carlo"

On August 26, 2021, Janela B. Cabrera ("Victim") filed a Declaration in this case aclmowledging

that she received satisfaction for her injury and harm to her property. Decl. of Janela B. Cabrera,

1] 4 (Aug. 26, 2021) (hereinafter "Decl."). Further, in her Declaration, the Victim stated `that she

does not object to dismissal of this case and that she made her Declaration voluntarily and

without coercion. Decl, 'n 4-5.

The People filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion ("Opposition") On August 30,

2021. Defendant- filed a Reply to the Government's Opposition ("Reply") on September 16,

2021. Upon review of the briefs, the Court determined that oral argument was unnecessary and

issued a CR 1.1 Form 3 taldng this matter under advisement on October 18, 2021 .

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the Magistrate's Complaint pursuant to 8 GCA §

80.90. Mot., at 1. Defendant's Motion is based upon die Declaration filed by the Victim. Decl.

114-5. Defendant further argues that civil compromise is appropriate in this case because: 1) the

charge has a civil remedy under Title 7 of the Guam Code Annotated, Chapter 10; 2) the

satisfaction as declared by the Victim is adequate and the Victim consents to resolve thecae

through civil compromise; and 3) there is no evidence that the public would Not be i1l1y 1 I

I

vindicated through Civil Compromise because there is no report of property damage and no

ph 7sical injuries. Mot., at 3.

In the People's Opposition, the People argue that the Victim's Declaration does not meet

' the satisfaction of injury requirement because the Defendant "does not indicate how the Victim

received satisfaction for her injury. or if any actual civil agreement was reached." Opp., at 3;

2 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CIVIL COMPROMISE CM0478-20,' People of Guam u Ricardo Daniel Del RosaWo, akaRichara'o Daniel Del Rosario, .aka "Ric k ", a k a "Ca r lo "

Additionally, the People argue that dismissal due to civil compromise is inappropriate because r

the public interest is best served by Defendant receiving necessary treatment through the

prosecution of this matter. Id.

I. T h e Re q u ir e m e n t s o f Gu a m ' s Civ il Co m p r o m is e St a t u t e , 8 GCA § 8 0 .9 0 , Ar e Met. l

Guard's Criminal Procedure Code provides that a court may order a criminal action

dismissed, "[w]hen the defendant has been charged with. the commission of an offense which is

not a felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense has a remedy by a

civil action," and "[when] the person injured appears before, or files his declaration in, the court

in which the criminal action is pending ... and acknowledges that he has received satisfaction

fo r th e i n j u r y ." 8 G C A § 8 0 .9 0 ( a ) a n d ( b ) . F u r th e r , " d i s m i s s a l u n d e r th i s S e c ti o n i s a b a y to

another prosecution for the same offense." 8 GCA § 80.90(c).

A. Def endant 's Charge Is a Pet t y Misdem eanor and Has a Civil Rem edy.

Fir s t, it is u n d is p u te d th a t De fe n d a n t wa s c h a r g e d with o n e p e tty mis d e me a n o r a n d n o

felonies. Second, t h e c h a r g e h a s a r e m e d y b y c i v i l a c t i o n . A cha r ged offens e ha s a

corresponding civil remedy if, "the civil cause of action shares a common element with the

criminal offense, compromise is available, overlapping, not full congruence, is required."

People v Iischman, 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 650, 654 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).

In Guam, criminal trespass is defined as follows: "[a] person commits an offense if,

knowing that he is not licensed tb do so, he enters or surreptitiously remains in any habitable

property or building." 9 GCA § 37.30(a). Likewise, t r espa ss ha s a common la w civil

3 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CIVIL COMPROMISE CM0478=20; People of Guam 14 Ricardo Daniel Del Rosario, aka Richardo Daniel Del Rosario, aka "Rick", aka "Carlo" `

counterpart that requires, "the following elements: a) the tortfeasor intentionally, b) enters the v I . land m possesslonof another .. . c) or remains on the land .. • Ias Guerrero V DLB Const. Co.,

1999 Guam 9 1] 16 (citing Restatement (Second) Torts § 158 (1988)) Here, both criminal and

common law trespass require the entering of another's properly, the knowledge or intent that they

are not under license to do so, and remaining on the property. Therefore, the act constituting the

charge of CriMinal Trespass has a civil remedy, and civil compromise is thereby allowed under §

80.90(a). B. The Victim Filed A Declaration Acknowledging That She Has Received Satisfaction for the Injury.

In addition, the Victim filed a Declaration, stating "I acknowledge that I have received

satisfaction for the injury and harm to my property, and I do not object to dismissal of this case

by way of the Civil Compromise statute. Iliave informed the Attorney General's Office that I'd.

like to have this case dismissed" Deal. 1]4. The People .argue that the Declaration "by itself does

not meet the satisfaction of injury requirement under 8 GCA § 80.90." Opp., at 3. However, the

People fall to explain how or why this Declaration is insufficient.

The statute does not suggest that monetary satisfaction is the only way to meet 8 GCA §

801.90's requirements.' T he Civil Compromise statute does Not "specify that the victim's

'satisfaction for the injury' mustarise from the institution of a civil action or what the nature or

form of such 'satisfaction' [may] be." People v. Stephen, 182 Cal. App. ad Supp. 14, 27 (Cal. 3

1 See e.g., People 14 Castro, CM0350-14, Decision and Order, at 2 (May 18, 2015), People u Doone, CM0845-12, Decision and Order, at 3-4 (May 9, 2013); People u Kinsey, CM0009-14,. Decision and Order, at 2-4 (Aug. 18, 2014), People u Gaza, CM0860-14, Decision and Order, at 5-6 (April 15, 2015).

4 DEc1s1on AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CIVIL COMPROMISE CM0478-20; People of Guam 14 Ricardo Daniel Del Rosario, aka Richardo Daniel Del Rosario, aka "Rick", aka "Cardo"

App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1986) (rejecting the Government's contention "that unless the victim

acknowledges that he has received complete compensation for the injury, the court abuses its

discretion in granting civil compromise.").

Furthermore, satisfaction for the injury is achieved when "the victim has in actuality

received recompense acceptable to hi m for hi s injury, not that the victim has received every

recovery possible under civil law or everything the victim believed he would be entitled to

civilly." Stephen, 182 Cal. App. ad Supp. at 27. Since 8 GCA § 80.90 neither defines

satisfaction nor explicitly authorizes waiver or partial waiver of Satisfaction, the Court must

determine the meaning of satisfaction.

Sta tu tory i nterpreta ti on i s a l eg a l q u es ti on a nd .the i nq u i ry a l w a ys beg i ns w i th the

language of do statute. See People u Robert, 2019 Guam 2 1] 10. A statute's plain meaning

prevails absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, but the Could need not follow the plain

language of a statute "where the result would lead to absurd or impractical consequences,

untenable distinctions, or unreasonable results." People v F l o r e s , 2 0 0 4 Gu a m 1 8 1 [ 1 8 .

Consistent with previous holdings issued by the Superior Court, this COurt therefore Concludes

that it would be an absurd result to require the Victim to receive complete satisfaction and to

reflect any lesser proposed, or non-monetary, satisfaction Acceptable satisfaction may take

different forms based on the crimes charged, damage inflicted, and relationship between the

Victim and Defendant. The Court, therefore, declines to adopt a rigid approach and concludes I

mt assessing satisfaction necessarily is a fact-specific inquiry.

2 See e.g., s upra note 1.

5 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CIVIL COMPROMISE CM0478-20; People of Guam M Ricardo' Daniel Del Rosario, aka Richardo Daniel Del Rosario, aka "Rick", aka "Carlo"

Here, the Victim states that she has received satisfaction for the injury and harm to her

p r ép edy a nd r equ es t s dis mis s a l of t he c a s e b y wa y of C ivil C omp r omis e. Deal. 11 4.

Additionally, there is no information provided to the Court indicating that any physical injury

occurred or .that costs were incurred as a result of the incident charged. See Magistrate's

Complaint (Nov. 13, 2020). Because 8 GCA § 80.90 does not direct this Could to adjudicate the

terms of a mutually satisfactory agreement between competent private parties and because there

is no basis to question the Victim's sworn statement, the Court accepts the Victim's Declaration

acknowledging that she received satisfaction for her injury. See Stephen, 182 Cal. App. ad Supp.

at 27.

11. The Court Exercises Its Discretion To Dismiss the Case Based on Civil Compromise.

When the requirements of 8 GCA § 80.90 are met, the Court must then determine 1

~w}iether it should exercise its discretion to dismiss the case based on civil compromise. Title 8

GCA § 80.90 is based on former California Penal Code §§ 1377 and 1378. See 8 GCA § 80.90,

Note, compare 8 GCA § 80.90 with Cal. Penal Code §§ 1377 and 1378. Thus, California-case '

law interpreting §§ 1377~and 1378 is persuasive to interpreting 8 GCA § 80.90. See Cruz v

Cruz, 2005 Guam 3, 'H 9, see also People v. Hall, 2004 Guam 12, 11 18, see also Fajardo v

Liberty House Guam, 2000 Guam 4, 11 17.

In People v Moulton, the Court held that various factors may be taken into consideration

by; a Md judge in determining whether to dismiss a miSdemeanor criminal prosecution under a

civil compromise statute. 182 Cal. Rptr. at 767-68. These factors include: 1) whether the civil

6 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CIVIL COMPROMISE CM0478-20; People of Guam V Ricardo Daniel Del Rosario, aka Richardo Daniel Del Rosario, aka "Rick", aka "Carlo" . _

injury was coextensive with the criminal violation, 2) whether the circumstances were such that

through private settlement,

victim's settlement agreement was made voluntarily. Id.

First, as explained above, the civil injury was coextensive with the violation of criminal

trespass. Second, in determining whether the injury to the public was fury vindicated, the

due circumstances of the commission of the offense, should

be considered. Moulton, 182 Cal. Rptr. at 768L Here, the Magistrate's°Comp1aint, Victim's

Declaration, and the criminal trespass statutes indicate that the offense in question was of

minimal severity. Further, it appears that the incident occurred between parties known to one

another, it Was isolated with respect to its scope and damage caused, there is no allegation of any

physical injury, and the incident was not against public order. See Magistrate's Complaint (Nov.

13,2020) Third, the Victim's Declaration states: "I have authority to make this declaration and I do

so voluntarily and without any coercion." Decl. 1] 4-5. In the absence of any indication that it

was made involuntarily, the Court is in no position to second guess the Victim's sworn statement

that>she has received Satisfaction and is filing the Declaration voluntarily.

minimal severity of ally harm caused to the Victim, and the

Victim's Declaration that she has received satisfaction for any injuries incurred, this Court finds

interests of justice, judicial

economy, fairness, and common sense" and fully vindicates the injury to the public. L e h m a n ,

40 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 654:

7 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CIVIL COMPROMISE CM0478-20; People of Guam u Ricardo Daniel Del Rosanlo, aka Richardo Daniel Del Rosario, aka "Riel", aka "Cardo" r

C ONC L US ION

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant's Motion for

Civil Compromise. The case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

SO ORDERED: JAN 1 L 2022

HON( ED GUT RREZ Judge __ Chu bf Gun