PILED SUPERIOR COURT OF( IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUA F, , 2
3 CLEF CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM38' 4 PEOPLE OF GUAM )
5 DECISION AND ORDER 6 VS. ) Defendant 's Motion for Civil Compr
7 JORGE J. BORJA LEON GUERRERO, B Defendant. ) 9
10 INTRODUCTION 11 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on February 26, 2014 on Jorge 12 J. Borja Leon Guerrero's ("Defendant") Motion for Civil Compromise. Assistant Public 13
14 Defender Jocelyn M. Roden represented Defendant. Assistant Attorney General Jess J.N.
15 Nasis represented the People of Guam ("the People"). The parties submitted on their resp ctive 16 briefs and the Court took the matter under advisement. Upon review of the evidence, ritten 17 arguments and legal authorities presented by the parties, the Court hereby issues this De ision 18
and Order GRANTING Defendant's motion. 19
20 BACKGROUND 21 Defendant was charged with Criminal Mischief (as a Misdemeanor) on April 26, 2013. 22 It is alleged that on or about March 29, 2013, the Defendant damaged a 2012 black Kia Forte 23 (GU LP# SRI 809) belonging to the Victim. The incident arises out of an automobile sale. The 24
Victim sold Defendant another vehicle, a Mercury Mystique. However, upon the Victim's 25
26 attempt to switch off vehicles' through a third-party, Defendant "[hit] the right rear port 27
28 1 Defendant was in possession of the Kia Forte on March 29, 2013 accordi the Magistrate's Complaint.
People v. Leon Guerrero (CM389-13) Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise
GMAL 1 1 1 the Kia Forte with his hands. The Defendant then braced himself against the wall and icked
2 the driver's side area of the Kia Forte with his feet. The Defendant then removed the c ntents
3 of the center dashboard with force." Complaint (Apr. 26, 2013). The Victim and Defend ant are 4 siblings. 5 Defendant appeared for an arraignment on June 12, 2013 without c unsel. 6
Consequently, he was appointed Public Defender Service Corporation as counsel and 7
8 arraignment was continued for June 19, 2013. On June 19, 2013, Defendant pled not guil and
9 waived his right to a speedy trial. The instant case was then assigned to this Court on Ju e 24, 10 2013. 11 On January 23, 2014, the Victim filed a Declaration acknowledging satisfaction for 12
injuries sustained relative to this case. The Victim also represented in her Declaration that she 13
14 does not object to dismissal of this case by way of the Civil Compromise statute. Accordingly, 15 Defendant filed the instant motion on January 27, 2014. The People filed their oppositi n on 16 February 21, 2014. On February 26, 2014, the Court heard the matter. 17
DISCUSSION 18
19 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the People's Complaint pursuant to 8 G A §
20 80.90(b). Defendant's motion is based on the "waiver from the victim that indicates A e has 21 received satisfaction for the injury." Def. 's Mot. for Civil Compromise at 2 (Jan. 27, 014). 22 Defendant also argues that "Guam law provides that where the victim would have a remedy by 23
civil action, the Court has the discretion to dismiss an action that is a misdemeanor w ere a 24
25 declaration has been filed by the victim stating satisfaction." Id.
26 The People oppose Defendant's motion. The People argue that "defendant h not 27 shown proof of [Victim's] satisfaction." People's Opp 'n Mot. at 3 (Feb. 21, 2014). They 28
People v. Leon Guerrero (CM389-13) Page 2 of 5 Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise 1 11further argue that "[u]ntil [they] have proof of the victim's satisfaction, and the voluntari> ess of 2 the settlement, allowing civil compromise would be contrary to public policy and legislative
3 intent." Id. 4 Misdemeanors may be compromised in accordance with Guam law. Guam's C minal 5 Procedure provides when misdemeanors may be compromised as follows: , 6
7 (a) When 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 8 remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised as provided by the Section. I 9
(b) If the person injured appears before, or files his declaration in, the court in which the 10 criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges that e has 11 received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, on payment of the costs incurred, order the criminal action dismissed. 12
(c) A dismissal under this Section is a bar to another prosecution of the same offense. 13
14 8 GCA § 80.90
15 Section 80.90 is based on California Penal Code §§ 1377 and 1378. California cal e law
16 is persuasive when there is no compelling reason to deviate from California's interpretation. 17 Zurich Ins. (Guam), Inc. v. Santos, 2007 Guam 23 ¶ 7. As such, the legislative purpose behind 18
allowing civil compromise of criminal misdemeanors is not to guarantee a victim maxtimum 19
20 compensation for the injury, but to remove from criminal prosecution those offenses for Which
21 there is a civil remedy available. People v. Stephen, 182 Cal. App.3rd 14, 27 (1986. The 22 rationale for this legislative purpose, as indicated in Stephen, is that the public interest in those 23 cases is best served by requiring the accused to make restitution directly and immediately to the 24
individual victim instead of subjecting the accused to criminal sanctions for the welfare of 25
26 society in general. Id.
27 In People v. Moulton, 131 Cal.App.3d Supp. 10 (1982), the Court held that v ious 28 factors may be taken into consideration by a trial judge in determining whether to dismiss a
People v. Leon Guerrero (CM389-13) Page 3 of 5 Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise misdemeanor criminal prosecution under a civil compromise statute. These factors include (1) 1
2 whether the civil injury was coextensive with the criminal violation; (2) whether the
3 circumstances were such that through private settlement the injury to the public w fully 4 vindicated; and (3) whether the victim' s settlement agreement was made voluntarily. Id. at 21- 5 23. 6
In the instant case, the Defendant is charged with Criminal Mischief (as a Misdem anor) 7
8 pursuant to 9 GCA §§ 34.50(c) and 34.60( c). A person commits criminal mischief if. he
9 intentionally damages the property of another. See 9 GCA § 34.50(c). The Court fin s that 10 there is a civil remedy available under Guam law. Since a civil remedy was readily avail ble at 11 the inception of this criminal case, it may be deduced that the civil injury was coextensive with 12
13 the criminal violation.
14 In regards to whether the circumstances are such that through private settleme t the
15 injury to the public would be fully vindicated, the Moulton court held that the seriousness of the 16 injury, as well as the circumstances of the commission of t he offense, are taker into 17
consideration in "determining whether a civil satisfaction adequately vindicates the public's 18
19 interest in enforcing its criminal laws." Id. at 23. In the instant case, there was no allegat on of
20 physical injury to the Victim, other than damage to her personal property. The Court is sa sfied 21 with the Declaration submitted by the Victim and finds that the private settlement fully 22 vindicates any injury to the public. 23
Lastly, in regards to whether the victim's settlement agreement was made voluntarily, 24
25 this Court recognizes that the Victim submitted a Declaration. The
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
PILED SUPERIOR COURT OF( IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUA F, , 2
3 CLEF CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM38' 4 PEOPLE OF GUAM )
5 DECISION AND ORDER 6 VS. ) Defendant 's Motion for Civil Compr
7 JORGE J. BORJA LEON GUERRERO, B Defendant. ) 9
10 INTRODUCTION 11 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on February 26, 2014 on Jorge 12 J. Borja Leon Guerrero's ("Defendant") Motion for Civil Compromise. Assistant Public 13
14 Defender Jocelyn M. Roden represented Defendant. Assistant Attorney General Jess J.N.
15 Nasis represented the People of Guam ("the People"). The parties submitted on their resp ctive 16 briefs and the Court took the matter under advisement. Upon review of the evidence, ritten 17 arguments and legal authorities presented by the parties, the Court hereby issues this De ision 18
and Order GRANTING Defendant's motion. 19
20 BACKGROUND 21 Defendant was charged with Criminal Mischief (as a Misdemeanor) on April 26, 2013. 22 It is alleged that on or about March 29, 2013, the Defendant damaged a 2012 black Kia Forte 23 (GU LP# SRI 809) belonging to the Victim. The incident arises out of an automobile sale. The 24
Victim sold Defendant another vehicle, a Mercury Mystique. However, upon the Victim's 25
26 attempt to switch off vehicles' through a third-party, Defendant "[hit] the right rear port 27
28 1 Defendant was in possession of the Kia Forte on March 29, 2013 accordi the Magistrate's Complaint.
People v. Leon Guerrero (CM389-13) Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise
GMAL 1 1 1 the Kia Forte with his hands. The Defendant then braced himself against the wall and icked
2 the driver's side area of the Kia Forte with his feet. The Defendant then removed the c ntents
3 of the center dashboard with force." Complaint (Apr. 26, 2013). The Victim and Defend ant are 4 siblings. 5 Defendant appeared for an arraignment on June 12, 2013 without c unsel. 6
Consequently, he was appointed Public Defender Service Corporation as counsel and 7
8 arraignment was continued for June 19, 2013. On June 19, 2013, Defendant pled not guil and
9 waived his right to a speedy trial. The instant case was then assigned to this Court on Ju e 24, 10 2013. 11 On January 23, 2014, the Victim filed a Declaration acknowledging satisfaction for 12
injuries sustained relative to this case. The Victim also represented in her Declaration that she 13
14 does not object to dismissal of this case by way of the Civil Compromise statute. Accordingly, 15 Defendant filed the instant motion on January 27, 2014. The People filed their oppositi n on 16 February 21, 2014. On February 26, 2014, the Court heard the matter. 17
DISCUSSION 18
19 Defendant moves the Court to dismiss the People's Complaint pursuant to 8 G A §
20 80.90(b). Defendant's motion is based on the "waiver from the victim that indicates A e has 21 received satisfaction for the injury." Def. 's Mot. for Civil Compromise at 2 (Jan. 27, 014). 22 Defendant also argues that "Guam law provides that where the victim would have a remedy by 23
civil action, the Court has the discretion to dismiss an action that is a misdemeanor w ere a 24
25 declaration has been filed by the victim stating satisfaction." Id.
26 The People oppose Defendant's motion. The People argue that "defendant h not 27 shown proof of [Victim's] satisfaction." People's Opp 'n Mot. at 3 (Feb. 21, 2014). They 28
People v. Leon Guerrero (CM389-13) Page 2 of 5 Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise 1 11further argue that "[u]ntil [they] have proof of the victim's satisfaction, and the voluntari> ess of 2 the settlement, allowing civil compromise would be contrary to public policy and legislative
3 intent." Id. 4 Misdemeanors may be compromised in accordance with Guam law. Guam's C minal 5 Procedure provides when misdemeanors may be compromised as follows: , 6
7 (a) When 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 8 remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised as provided by the Section. I 9
(b) If the person injured appears before, or files his declaration in, the court in which the 10 criminal action is pending at any time before trial and acknowledges that e has 11 received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, on payment of the costs incurred, order the criminal action dismissed. 12
(c) A dismissal under this Section is a bar to another prosecution of the same offense. 13
14 8 GCA § 80.90
15 Section 80.90 is based on California Penal Code §§ 1377 and 1378. California cal e law
16 is persuasive when there is no compelling reason to deviate from California's interpretation. 17 Zurich Ins. (Guam), Inc. v. Santos, 2007 Guam 23 ¶ 7. As such, the legislative purpose behind 18
allowing civil compromise of criminal misdemeanors is not to guarantee a victim maxtimum 19
20 compensation for the injury, but to remove from criminal prosecution those offenses for Which
21 there is a civil remedy available. People v. Stephen, 182 Cal. App.3rd 14, 27 (1986. The 22 rationale for this legislative purpose, as indicated in Stephen, is that the public interest in those 23 cases is best served by requiring the accused to make restitution directly and immediately to the 24
individual victim instead of subjecting the accused to criminal sanctions for the welfare of 25
26 society in general. Id.
27 In People v. Moulton, 131 Cal.App.3d Supp. 10 (1982), the Court held that v ious 28 factors may be taken into consideration by a trial judge in determining whether to dismiss a
People v. Leon Guerrero (CM389-13) Page 3 of 5 Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise misdemeanor criminal prosecution under a civil compromise statute. These factors include (1) 1
2 whether the civil injury was coextensive with the criminal violation; (2) whether the
3 circumstances were such that through private settlement the injury to the public w fully 4 vindicated; and (3) whether the victim' s settlement agreement was made voluntarily. Id. at 21- 5 23. 6
In the instant case, the Defendant is charged with Criminal Mischief (as a Misdem anor) 7
8 pursuant to 9 GCA §§ 34.50(c) and 34.60( c). A person commits criminal mischief if. he
9 intentionally damages the property of another. See 9 GCA § 34.50(c). The Court fin s that 10 there is a civil remedy available under Guam law. Since a civil remedy was readily avail ble at 11 the inception of this criminal case, it may be deduced that the civil injury was coextensive with 12
13 the criminal violation.
14 In regards to whether the circumstances are such that through private settleme t the
15 injury to the public would be fully vindicated, the Moulton court held that the seriousness of the 16 injury, as well as the circumstances of the commission of t he offense, are taker into 17
consideration in "determining whether a civil satisfaction adequately vindicates the public's 18
19 interest in enforcing its criminal laws." Id. at 23. In the instant case, there was no allegat on of
20 physical injury to the Victim, other than damage to her personal property. The Court is sa sfied 21 with the Declaration submitted by the Victim and finds that the private settlement fully 22 vindicates any injury to the public. 23
Lastly, in regards to whether the victim's settlement agreement was made voluntarily, 24
25 this Court recognizes that the Victim submitted a Declaration. The
26 Declaration states that the victim understands she has a remedy through civil action. The Court 27
People v. Leon Guerrero (CM389-13) Page 4 of 5 Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise is not in a position to second guess the Declaration, considering it was submitted under jenalty 1
2 of perjury. Therefore, the Court accepts that the Victim has voluntarily made his Declaration.
3 The Court finds that Defendant Leon Guerrero's motion provides both the le+l and 4 factual basis to approve dismissal pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.90 for the following reasons: (j1) The 5 acts constituting the offense have a remedy by civil action; (2) the injury suffered by the 6
was not serious in nature and private settlement would fully vindicate any injury to the j,ublic; 7
8 and (3) the victim has submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury that she has re
9 satisfaction for the injury and would like for the Attorney General's Office to dismiss th 10 by way of civil compromise. There is no information provided to the Court of any costs in 11 as a result of this incident. The Victim stated in her Declaration that her insurance compaly has 12
13 paid for damages to her car. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant Leon Guerrero's
14 motion recognizing that the civil compromise statute as applied in the instant case ser es the
15 interests of justice, judicial economy and fairness to the parties. 16 CONCLUSION 17
By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the 18
19 GRANTS Defendant Leon Guerrero ' s Motion for Civil Compromise. The case is r
20 dismissed. 21 SO ORDERED this < day of MARCH, 2014. 22
23 SE 'E VIA COW 88OX 24 Ia edge that a copy r `the ,,,% aereto was placed i 'he 25 covet t•^r of.
26 v c � � f l( Al ,, cep52Q14 : 27 HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA Judge, Superior Court of Guam 28
People v. Leon Guerrero (CM389-13) Page 5 of 5 Decision and Order - Defendant's Motion for Civil Compromise