People v. Pangelinan

Opinion

FILED sup£-ma CGURT

GF GUAH

1 2022 FEB 10 PH 3: 3.1

2 CLERK UF C QT

3 Eye

4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 PEOPLE v. GUAM, 7 Plaintiff, Case No. CM0108-20 8 vs.

.9 DECISION AND ORDER

(Defendant Bob Steven Pangelinan's Motion BOB STEVEN PANGELINAN, 10 for Civil Compromise)

Defendant.

11

12

13 INTRODUCTION

14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on January 18, 2022, for 15 further proceedings on Defendant Bob Steven Pa.ngelinan's Motion for Civil Compromise, 16 filed on October 27, 2021. Assistant Public Defender Kathleen Aguon represents Bob Steven 17

18 Pangelinan ("Defendant"). Katherine Nepton represents the People of Guam ("People").

19 Having considered the arguments and the applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS the

20 Motion for Civil Compromise.

21 BACKGROUND

22 On March 3, 2020, Guam Police Department ("GPD") officers responded to a 23 complaint of a disturbance at a residence in Dededo. Mag. Complaint, Mar. 4, 2020. The 24 officers spoke with Mary Solana Pangelinan who informed the officers that Defendant shoved 25 the back of his minor son's head following an argument. Id. Aaron Solana Pangelinan 26 informed the officers that he tackled Defendant following the shove to prevent any further 27

Page 1 of f

I harm to Defendant's son. Id. Aaron Solana Pangelinan and the minor son went inside of the 2 house and locked the doors. Id. Defendant struggled with one of the locked doors and bashed 3 4 his head on the screen door of the house. Id. In doing so, he tore a hole in the metal screen.

5 Id. The hole is approximately one foot in length. Id. When the officers arrived, they located

6 Defendant in his wooden shack behind the house. Id. Defendant refused to talk with the

7 officers about theincident. Id.

s Defendant was charged with (1) Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor) and (2)

9 Harassment (As a Petty Misdemeanor). Id. On October 27, 2021, Defendant tiled the instant 1 . | l . . | 0 motion. Dei Bob Steven Pangellnan's Mot. for C1v1I Compromlse (hereinafter "De£'s Mot."), 11 Oct. 27, 2021. The People filed a response. People's Resp. to De£'s Mot. for Civil 12 Compromise (hereinafter "People's Resp."), Nov. 15, 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Court 13 held further proceedings and took the parties' arguments under advisement. Minute Entry, Jan.

14 18, 2022.

15 DISCUSSION

16

17 Defendant argues that both victims have a civil remedy available to them. De£'s Mot.

18 at 3. He further argues that the incident was isolated and the victims have since moved on and

19 forgiven Defendant. Id. Lastly, he argues that Mary Pangelinan has relocated to Washington

20 and does not intend to return to Guam. Id. The People do not oppose Defendant's motion. 21 People's Resp. at 1.

22 Title 8 GCA § 80.90 provides that a court may order a criminal action dismissed, 23 "[w]hen the defendant has been charged with the commission of an offense which is not a 24 felony for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense has a remedy by a civil 25 action," and "[when] the person injured appears before, or ilea his declaration in, the court in 26

27

Page 2 of 5

which the criminal action is pending ... and acknowledges that he has received satisfaction for 2 the injury."

3 The Guam Legislature based 8 GCA § 80.90 on California Penal Code §§ 1377 and 4

1378. California case law is persuasive when there is no compelling reason to deviate from 5

6 California's interpretation. Zurich Ins. (Guam), Inc. v. Santos, 2007 Guam 23 117. The

7 legislative purpose of allowing civil compromise of misdemeanor cases is to remove from

8 criminal prosecution those offenses for which there is a civil remedy available, the purpose is

9 not to guarantee a victim maximum compensation for the injury. People v. Stephen, 182 Cal.

10 App.3d 14, 27 (1986). The rationale for this legislative purpose is that requiring the accused to 11 make restitution directly and immediately to the individual victim best serves the public 12 interest. Id.

13 In People v. Moulton, 131 Cal. App.3d Supp. 10 (1982), the California Court of 14 Appeals identified factors for consideration when determining whether to dismiss a 15

16 misdemeanor criminal prosecution under a civil compromise statute. These factors include: (l)

17 whether the civil injury was coextensive with the criminal violation, (2) whether the

18 circumstances were such that through private settlement the injury to the public was fully

19 vindicated, and (3) whether the victim's settlement was made voluntarily. Id. at 21-23 .

20 Defendant is charged with Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor) pursuant to 9 GCA 21 §§ 34.50(c), (b) and 34.60(c) and Harassment (As a Petty Misdemeanor) pursuant to 9 GCA § 22 61 .20(c). The Court finds there is a civil remedy available under Guam law in this case. As a 23 civil remedy was readily available at the inception of this criminal case, it follows that the civil 24 injury was coextensive with the criminal violation.

25 The California Court of Appeal held in Moulton that the seriousness of the injury-as 26

27 well as the circumstances of theoffens: are taken into consideration in "determining whether

Page 3 of 5

a civil satisfaction adequately vindicates the public's interest in enforcing its criminal laws."

2 Id. at 23. The Court acknowledges that Defendant and Victims in this case are all family.

3 4 Accordingly, the declarations submitted by both victims and finds that the private settlement

fully vindicates any injury to the public.

5

6 Lastly, the Court notes that the both Mary Pangelinan and Aar.on Solana Pangelinan

7 ("Victims") submitted Declarations. The Declarations state that the Victims understand they

8 have remedy through civil action. Decl. of Mary Pangelinan, Oct. 27, 2021, Deal. Aaron

9 Solana Pangelinan, Oct. 2'7, 2021. The Declarations were submitted under penalty of perjury 10 . 1 . 1 and therefore, the Court does not questlon the va11d1ty of the Declaratlons. The Court accepts 11 the Victims have voluntarily made their Declarations.

12 Thus, the Court holds that the elements of 8 GCA § 80.90 are satisfied because the acts 13 constituting the offense have a remedy by civil action, the injury suffered by the victim was not 14 15 serious in nature and private settlement would fully vindicate any injury to the public, and the

16 victims have submitted declaration under the penalty of perjury that they have received

17 satisfaction for the injury and would like for the Attorney General's Office to dismiss this case

18 by way of civil compromise.

19

20

21

22

23

24

c

25

26

27

Page 4 of S

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

2 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Civil Compromise and 3 4 ORDERS Superior Court of Guam Criminal Case No. CM0108-20 dismissed.

5

6 SO ORDERED, this day of FEB t ll 2022 2022.

7

8 \. `- \_ H. ,JQ*-

9

10 HONORABIJE- ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO 11 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Page 5 of 5