4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 ) Case No. CF0020-08 PEOPLE OF GUAM ) 7 ) ) 8 ) vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER: Defendant's 9 ) Second Motion to Modify Bail Conditions ) 10 ) ) 11 ) DAVID Q. MANILA, )
~~ 12 _____________D_e_re_n_d_a_n_t.__________ 13
14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on December 19, 2012, for a 16 hearing on David Q. Manila's ("Defendant") Second Motion to Modify Bail Conditions. 17 Defendant was represented by Attorney William B. Pole. Assistant Attorney General Nelson J. 18 Werner represented the People of Guam ("the People"). Upon review of the oral and written 19 arguments and legal authorities presented by the parties, the Court hereby issues this Decision 20 and Order DENYING Defendant's Second Motion to Modify Bail Conditions. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On November 16, 2012, Defendant was indicted by a Superior Court of Guam Grand 23 Jury on the following charges: (1) Conspiracy to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) 24 (2) Conspiracy to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (3) Conspiracy to Commit 25 Kidnapping (as a 2nd Degree Felony) (4) Conspiracy to Commit Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd 26 Degree Felony) (5) Solicitation to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (6) Solicitation 27 to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (7) Solicitation to Commit Kidnapping (as a 2nd 28 Degree Felony) (8) Solicitation to Commit Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (9) Nine counts of Compelling Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (1 0) Sixteen counts of 1 Promoting Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (11) Attempt to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd 2 Degree Felony) (12) Two counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1st Degree 3 Felony) (13) Two counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1st Degree Felony) 4 (14) Criminal Intimidation (as a Misdemeanor) (15) Official Misconduct (as a Misdemeanor) 5 and (16) Abetting Prostitution (as a Misdemeanor). Superseding Indictment (Nov. 16, 2012). 6 A Second Superseding Indictment was handed down on Friday, November 23, 2012 7
8 charging Defendant with the following: (1) Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping (as a 2nd Degree
9 Felony) (2) Nine counts of Kidnapping (as a 2nd Degree Felony) (3) Conspiracy to Commit 10 Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (4) Nine counts of Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd 11 Degree Felony) (5) Conspiracy to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (6) Nine counts 12 of Compelling Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (7) Conspiracy to Promote Prostitution (as a 13
14 3rd Degree Felony) (8) Eleven counts of Promoting Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (9)
15 Solicitation to Commit Kidnapping (as a 2nd Degree Felony) (10) Solicitation to Commit 16 Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (11) Solicitation to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd 17 Degree Felony) (12) Solicitation to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (13) Attempt 18
to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (14) Attempt to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd 19
20 Degree Felony) (15) Two counts First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1st Degree 21 Felony) (16) Two counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1st Degree Felony) 22 (17) Criminal Intimidation (as a Misdemeanor) (18) Official Misconduct (as a Misdemeanor) 23 and (19) Abetting Prostitution (as a Misdemeanor). Second Superseding Indictment (Nov. 23, 24
25 2012).
26 Defendant remains in the custody of the Guam Detention Facility pending the posting of 27 cash bail set in the amount of $250,000.00. Commitment Order (Nov. 19, 2012). Defendant 28 filed a Motion to Modify Bail Conditions on November 19, 2012. Defs. Mot. to Modify Bail Conditions; Memo of Points & Authorities (Nov. 19, 2012). On November 21, 2012, the 1 People filed their opposition to the motion for release or reduction in bail. The Court heard oral 2 arguments on Defendant's motion on November 21, 2012, and issued its Decision and Order on 3 November 23, 2012, denying Defendant's motion. 4 Defendant now moves the Court to modify bail conditions. Def. Manila's Second 5 Motion to Modify Bail Conditions (Dec. 3, 2012). The People filed an opposition to Defendant 6 David Q. Manila's Second Motion to Modify Bail Conditions on December 14, 2012. On 7 December 17, 20 12, Defendant filed supplementary evidence and response in support of his 8 release. The Court heard the matter on December 19, 2012, and now issues this Decision and 9
Order. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Defendant moves the Court for his release on "his personal recognizance or that he be 12 released with the additional security of third party custodians and in the alternative that he be 13 allowed to use his house as additional security." Id. 14 The People oppose Defendant's motion and argue the following: (1) the amount of 15 Defendant's bail is justified, (2) Defendant's other arguments for release are not factors for this 16 Court's consideration, and (3) an inability to follow a Court's ordered conditions is grounds to 17 deny the Defendant's release. 18 In response, Defendant in his supplemental filings argues that the Federal Government 19 did not require Co-Defendant Song Ja Cha to provide cash for her pre-trial release and both the 20 Office of the Attorney General and this Court agreed that an unsecured bond was appropriate 21 for her. Additionally, Defendant contends that "[t]he least onerous conditions are to be 22 imposed, but yet a bail that Mr. Manila cannot afford has been required." Defs Supplementary 23 Evidence & Support ofDavid Manila's Release (Dec. 17, 2012). 24 The People opposed Defendant's earlier motion filed on November 19, 2012, arguing 25 that pre-trial confinement is necessary to protect the victims. People's Opposition to the 26 Motions for Release or Reduction in Bail by Defendants David Q. Manila & Mario L. 27 Laxamana (Nov. 21, 2012). The People contend that "Defendants in this case are alleged to 28 have used their positions as Guam police officers to intimidate and threaten the victims ensuring 1
their compliance with [co-Defendant] Cha and their own demands. Defendant Manila is 2 accused of raping two of the victims at the Blue House. The forced prostitution, kidnapping and 3 the felonious restraint was all accomplished through Defendants' threats." Id. 4
Guam law provides that release on bail is generally permitted: 5
At his first appearance before a judge of the Superior Court, every person charged 6 with offense shall be ordered released pending trial in the manner and subject to 7 the conditions provided by §§ 40.15 and 40.20.
8 8 GCA § 40.10 (2005). 9 The judge shall order the person charged to be released on recognizance, unless 10 the judge determines, in his discretion, on the basis of available information, that such a release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required 11 or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community. 12 8 GCA § 40.15 (b) (2005) (emphasis added). 13 The Court does not find any changed circumstances in its review of the Second Motion 14
15 for Bail Modification or additional facts to alter its earlier ruling on this matter. Moreover, the
16 Court will not second guess why the Federal Government did not require a cash bail for Co- 17 Defendant Cha. The Court still recognizes that "[ d]eterminations as to bail conditions and 18 amounts are not to be driven by the goal of keeping the accused incarcerated, but should rather 19 be reached in consideration of the only authorized interests, to wit, ensuring the appearance of 20
21 the accused and the safety of others." People v. Song, 2011 Guam 19 ~ 11. Accordingly, the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5
6 ) Case No. CF0020-08 PEOPLE OF GUAM ) 7 ) ) 8 ) vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER: Defendant's 9 ) Second Motion to Modify Bail Conditions ) 10 ) ) 11 ) DAVID Q. MANILA, )
~~ 12 _____________D_e_re_n_d_a_n_t.__________ 13
14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on December 19, 2012, for a 16 hearing on David Q. Manila's ("Defendant") Second Motion to Modify Bail Conditions. 17 Defendant was represented by Attorney William B. Pole. Assistant Attorney General Nelson J. 18 Werner represented the People of Guam ("the People"). Upon review of the oral and written 19 arguments and legal authorities presented by the parties, the Court hereby issues this Decision 20 and Order DENYING Defendant's Second Motion to Modify Bail Conditions. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On November 16, 2012, Defendant was indicted by a Superior Court of Guam Grand 23 Jury on the following charges: (1) Conspiracy to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) 24 (2) Conspiracy to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (3) Conspiracy to Commit 25 Kidnapping (as a 2nd Degree Felony) (4) Conspiracy to Commit Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd 26 Degree Felony) (5) Solicitation to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (6) Solicitation 27 to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (7) Solicitation to Commit Kidnapping (as a 2nd 28 Degree Felony) (8) Solicitation to Commit Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (9) Nine counts of Compelling Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (1 0) Sixteen counts of 1 Promoting Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (11) Attempt to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd 2 Degree Felony) (12) Two counts of First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1st Degree 3 Felony) (13) Two counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (as a 1st Degree Felony) 4 (14) Criminal Intimidation (as a Misdemeanor) (15) Official Misconduct (as a Misdemeanor) 5 and (16) Abetting Prostitution (as a Misdemeanor). Superseding Indictment (Nov. 16, 2012). 6 A Second Superseding Indictment was handed down on Friday, November 23, 2012 7
8 charging Defendant with the following: (1) Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping (as a 2nd Degree
9 Felony) (2) Nine counts of Kidnapping (as a 2nd Degree Felony) (3) Conspiracy to Commit 10 Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (4) Nine counts of Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd 11 Degree Felony) (5) Conspiracy to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (6) Nine counts 12 of Compelling Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (7) Conspiracy to Promote Prostitution (as a 13
14 3rd Degree Felony) (8) Eleven counts of Promoting Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (9)
15 Solicitation to Commit Kidnapping (as a 2nd Degree Felony) (10) Solicitation to Commit 16 Felonious Restraint (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (11) Solicitation to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd 17 Degree Felony) (12) Solicitation to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (13) Attempt 18
to Compel Prostitution (as a 3rd Degree Felony) (14) Attempt to Promote Prostitution (as a 3rd 19
20 Degree Felony) (15) Two counts First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1st Degree 21 Felony) (16) Two counts of Second Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (As a 1st Degree Felony) 22 (17) Criminal Intimidation (as a Misdemeanor) (18) Official Misconduct (as a Misdemeanor) 23 and (19) Abetting Prostitution (as a Misdemeanor). Second Superseding Indictment (Nov. 23, 24
25 2012).
26 Defendant remains in the custody of the Guam Detention Facility pending the posting of 27 cash bail set in the amount of $250,000.00. Commitment Order (Nov. 19, 2012). Defendant 28 filed a Motion to Modify Bail Conditions on November 19, 2012. Defs. Mot. to Modify Bail Conditions; Memo of Points & Authorities (Nov. 19, 2012). On November 21, 2012, the 1 People filed their opposition to the motion for release or reduction in bail. The Court heard oral 2 arguments on Defendant's motion on November 21, 2012, and issued its Decision and Order on 3 November 23, 2012, denying Defendant's motion. 4 Defendant now moves the Court to modify bail conditions. Def. Manila's Second 5 Motion to Modify Bail Conditions (Dec. 3, 2012). The People filed an opposition to Defendant 6 David Q. Manila's Second Motion to Modify Bail Conditions on December 14, 2012. On 7 December 17, 20 12, Defendant filed supplementary evidence and response in support of his 8 release. The Court heard the matter on December 19, 2012, and now issues this Decision and 9
Order. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Defendant moves the Court for his release on "his personal recognizance or that he be 12 released with the additional security of third party custodians and in the alternative that he be 13 allowed to use his house as additional security." Id. 14 The People oppose Defendant's motion and argue the following: (1) the amount of 15 Defendant's bail is justified, (2) Defendant's other arguments for release are not factors for this 16 Court's consideration, and (3) an inability to follow a Court's ordered conditions is grounds to 17 deny the Defendant's release. 18 In response, Defendant in his supplemental filings argues that the Federal Government 19 did not require Co-Defendant Song Ja Cha to provide cash for her pre-trial release and both the 20 Office of the Attorney General and this Court agreed that an unsecured bond was appropriate 21 for her. Additionally, Defendant contends that "[t]he least onerous conditions are to be 22 imposed, but yet a bail that Mr. Manila cannot afford has been required." Defs Supplementary 23 Evidence & Support ofDavid Manila's Release (Dec. 17, 2012). 24 The People opposed Defendant's earlier motion filed on November 19, 2012, arguing 25 that pre-trial confinement is necessary to protect the victims. People's Opposition to the 26 Motions for Release or Reduction in Bail by Defendants David Q. Manila & Mario L. 27 Laxamana (Nov. 21, 2012). The People contend that "Defendants in this case are alleged to 28 have used their positions as Guam police officers to intimidate and threaten the victims ensuring 1
their compliance with [co-Defendant] Cha and their own demands. Defendant Manila is 2 accused of raping two of the victims at the Blue House. The forced prostitution, kidnapping and 3 the felonious restraint was all accomplished through Defendants' threats." Id. 4
Guam law provides that release on bail is generally permitted: 5
At his first appearance before a judge of the Superior Court, every person charged 6 with offense shall be ordered released pending trial in the manner and subject to 7 the conditions provided by §§ 40.15 and 40.20.
8 8 GCA § 40.10 (2005). 9 The judge shall order the person charged to be released on recognizance, unless 10 the judge determines, in his discretion, on the basis of available information, that such a release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required 11 or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community. 12 8 GCA § 40.15 (b) (2005) (emphasis added). 13 The Court does not find any changed circumstances in its review of the Second Motion 14
15 for Bail Modification or additional facts to alter its earlier ruling on this matter. Moreover, the
16 Court will not second guess why the Federal Government did not require a cash bail for Co- 17 Defendant Cha. The Court still recognizes that "[ d]eterminations as to bail conditions and 18 amounts are not to be driven by the goal of keeping the accused incarcerated, but should rather 19 be reached in consideration of the only authorized interests, to wit, ensuring the appearance of 20
21 the accused and the safety of others." People v. Song, 2011 Guam 19 ~ 11. Accordingly, the
22 Court is still concerned with the safety of others component to the two-part test enunciated in 23 Song. The nature of the offense charged and apparent possibility of conviction and likely 24 sentence is a factor this Court already considered. The instant case alleges First and Second 25 Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, Criminal Intimidation, and several conspiracy and solicitation 26
27 charges, inter alia, against Defendant.
28 Defendant notes that he is willing to give up his house "even though it is not worth a 1
2 quarter of a million dollars" to satisfy the set bail. Transcript JDAASCRA (12/19/20 12) at
3 10:41 :50. The Court agrees with the People that in light of the circumstances and the charges in 4 the indictment, the amount of Defendant's bail is justified for the same reasons spelled out in its 5 earlier ruling. "The test for excessiveness of bail is not whether a defendant is financially able 6
to satisfy the requirement but whether bail is set at an amount higher than reasonably calculated 7
8 to assure the presence of the accused." People v. Bruneman, 1996 Guam 3 ~ 9. The Court is
9 extremely concerned of the safety of others involved and rests its decision on that consideration. 10 The People most recently alleged in their opposition that an investigation is ongoing into an 11 incident involving Defendant Manila where a cellular phone was provided to him, against 12
13 Department of Corrections protocols for pretrial incarcerated defendants. For these reasons, the
14 Court DENIES Defendant Manila's Second Motion to Modify Bail Conditions. 15 Bail remains set at $250,000.00 cash. 16 CONCLUSION 17 By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court 18
26 HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA Judge, Superior Court of Guam 27