" g LED Fi Xv 1 CLERK OFCOURT CLERK OF cobia?
2 2Q2L,g5p..5 AHH=37 202~ SEP -5 AM II:
3 £§L¥?ER§OR SUPERIOR (;UUF§'~"
COURT 4 Q F GUAM OFGUI\~~ 5
6
7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 8
9 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, CRIMINAL CRIMINALCASE CASEno.
NO.CM0249-24 CM0249-24 10 10 vs.
11 11 DECISION AND ORDER 12 12 ERINA LEE MANIBUSAN QUICHOCHO, 13
Defendant. Defendant.
14 14
15 15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon Vernon P. Perez for for the the limited limitedpurpose purpose of ofaddressing addressing 17 17 the People of the People of Guam's ("the Government")
Guam's ("the Government") Statement Statement of of Objection Objection 77 GCA GCA §§6107 6107 and Motion to and Motion to 18 18 Disqualify Disqualify filed filed August August 21, 21, 2024.
2024.
19 19 BACKGROUND 20 On On August August 17, 17, 2024, 2024, Defendant Erina Lee Manibusan Defendant Erina Quichocho ("Defendant")
Manibusan Quichocho ("Defendant") was was 21 charged with with(1)
(l) Driving DrivingWhile WhileImpaired Impaired with with aa BAC BAC of of0.08 0.08 or or More More (As (AsaaMisdemeanor), Misdemeanor); and and 22 (2) Driving Driving While WhileImpaired Impaired (As (As aa Misdemeanor).
Misdemeanor). (Magistrate's (Magistrate'sCon pl., Aug.
Compl., Aug. 17, 17, 2024).
2024).
23 On On August 20, 2024,this 20, 2024, thismatter matterwas wasassigned assignedtotoJudge Judge AlbertoE.E.Tolentino.
Alberto Tolentino. See SeeNotice Notice 24 of ofJudge Judge Assignment, Aug. 20, 20, 2024.
2024.
25 On On August August 21, 2024, the 21, 2024, the Government Governmentfiled filed aa Statement Statementof of Objection Objection 77 GCA GCA §§6107 6107 and and 26 Motion Motion to Disqualify Disqualify ("Objection"), ("Objection"), moving moving for forJudge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's recusal recusal in this this matter.
matter. The 27 27 Government moves for Government moves for Judge Tolentino's recusal Judge Tolentino's recusal pursuant pursuant toto77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. § § 6105(a)
6105(a) because of because of 28
People v.
v. Quichocho Case No. CM0249-24 Case No. CM0249-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 1 of7 of 1 Judge Tolentino's Judge Tolentino's familial familial relationship with Attorney relationship with Attorney General General Douglas Douglas B. Molyan. 1 B. Molyan.' See
2 generally, generally, Objection, Aug.
Aug. 21, 21, 2024.
2024.
3 3 August 26, On August 26, 2024, 2024, Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino filed his his AnsWer Answer to to Statement Statement of of Objection, Objection, 4 challenging the timeliness of challenging of the the objection objection and and denying denying that that his his recusal recusal is is appropriate appropriate in in this this 5 matter. See matter. See generally, generally, Answer, Aug.
Aug. 26, 26, 2024.
2024.
6 On August August 26, 26, 2024, 2024, pursuant pursuant toto 77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6107, 6107, the the question question of ofwhether whether Judge Judge 7 Tolentino should should be disqualified from continuing continuing to preside over over this this mater mater came before this this 8 recusal court. See Notice recusal court. Notice of ofAssignment Assignment of Recusal Judge, ofRecusal Judge, Aug.
Aug. 26, 26, 2024.
2024.
9 DISCUSSION
10 Title 77 G.C.A.
Title G.C.A.section section6105 6105sets setsforth forththe thesubstantive substantivegrounds grounds under under which which aa judge judge must must 11 be disqualified. Where Whereaajudge judgefails failsto todisqualify disqualifyhim himor orherself, herself,any anyparty partyto to that that proceeding may 12 12 move move to to disqualify disqualify the the judge judge pursuant to 77G.
pursuant to G.C.A.
C .A. §§ 6107.
6107.
13 13 A. Statement Statement of of Objection 14 The Government moves The moves to to disqualify disqualify Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino in in this this matter matter based based on the the 15 following following grounds:
grounds:
16 16 • • That from 20142014 to to 2022, 2022, Judge Judge Tolentino disqualified disqualified himself himself from from cases cases involving Attorney Attorney General General Moylan as a private attorney on the basis Moylan as a private attorney on the basis of the 17 17 familial relationship relationship that that exists between them, them;
18 18 • • That Judge That Judge Tolentino Tolentino stated stated that that disqualification disqualification was was necessary necessary because because 19 19 Attorney General General Moylan Moylan is is the the father of ofhis his step-children, step-children;
20 20 JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's last Form One-Disqualification One-Disqualification in • • That Judge in this regard was was filed filed 21 on October October 27, 2022, 2022;
22 ZN • the basis That the basisfor for Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's prior prior disqualifications disqualifications hasn't changed, changed;
23 • That aa reasonable reasonable person person would would presume presume that that Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's personal personal relationship with Attorney General relationship with General Moylan Moylan and and his prior prior years years disqualifying 24
25
26 26 l1 Attached to the Government's Attached Government's Statement of Objection Statement of Objection are are several several exhibits, exhibits, including including aa Decision Decision and Order issued and Order issued 27 27 by Judge Iriarte on June 4, 4, 2024 2024 in in People People v.
v. Taitingfong, Criminal Case Taitingfong, Criminal Case No.
No. CF0024-24, CF0024-24, and several Form and several Form One One --
Disqualification Disqualification 77 GCA GCA§ §6106 6106memorandums memorandumsissued issued by byJudge Judge Tolentino Tolentinorecursing himself from recusing himself from cases involving cases involving 28 Attorney General Moylan Attorney General Moylanwhen whenhe hewas wasininprivate privatepractice based on practicebased on section section 6105(a)
6105(a) up until October up until October 27, 27, 2022.
2022.
People v.
v. Quichocho Case No.
No. CM0249-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 2 of7
himself from any himself any matters matters involving AG Moylan involving AG Moylan would wouldraise raise aareasonable reasonable 1 about his question about his impartiality impartiality and and necessitate necessitatehis hisdisqualification;
disqualification, 2 • • That Judge Judge Tolentino has been disqualified from presiding Tolentino has presiding over over other other cases cases 3 based on the the above facts, facts; and and 4 • • San Agustin v.
ThatSan v. v.
v. Superior Cr.
Ct. of ofGuam, Guam, 2024 Guam 2, 2, required the the Clerk 5 of Court of Court toto refrain refrain from from assigning assigning cases cases to Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino once he he was was disqualified.
6 See Objection, Aug.
Aug. 21, 21, 2024.
2024.
7 In his answer, In answer, Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentino sets sets forth forth under underpenalty penaltyof of perjury perjurythe thefollowing following relevant 8 facts::
9 6. That at Mr. Moylan's Moylan'srequest, request, aameeting meetingbetween betweenhim himandand the the undersigned, undersigned, the 10 undersigned's chamberstaff, undersigned's chamber staff, the the Administrator Administratorofof the the Courts, Courts, and andMr.
Mr. Moylan's Moylan's 11 11 transition chairperson, chairperson,Mr.
Mr.Wilfred Wilfred Aflague, Aflague, occurred occurred in in December December 2022, 2022;
12 12 7. That 7. at this That at this meeting, meeting, Mr.Mr. Moylan Moylan assured assured me me and and the the other other members members in m attendance thathe attendance that heperceived perceivedno noconflict conflict in his election election as the Attorney General as the Attorney General and and 13 13 the prosecution prosecution of of criminal cases before criminal cases before the undersigned. It undersigned. It was was agreed agreed that that the 14 14 circumstances underlying my circumstances underlying my recusal recusal in in matters mattersthat thatMr.
Mr.Moylan Moylan was was a lawyer no longer longer existed, existed, to to wit:
wit:that thatduring duringmymyterm termas asthe theMagistrate MagistrateJudge Judge and and as as aa Judge Judge 15 15 I had routinely routinely recused reused myself myselffrom fromall allmatters matters where Mr. Moylan where Mr. Moylanwaswas the the attorney attorney 16 16 of a party before me on the of a party before me on the basisbasis that he was the father the father of my minor step-children minor step-children and that that the the minor step-children step-children were were members members of and and resided in in the the household household 17 17 maintained by me maintained by me and myand my wife and and that as of even even date, both step-children have date, both step-children 18 18 now reached majority majority and and adulthood and havehave been been residing residing at their own residences 19 19 in Guam and andin inthe the U.S.
U.S. Mainland;
Mainland,
20 20 8. That ThatMr.
Mr.Moylan Moylanever nevermade madean anappearance appearance as as aa lawyer lawyer in in this this case.
21 9.
9. That neither Mr. Moylan nor the neither Mr. the Office of ofthe the Attorney Attorney General General had had ever ever challenged challenged or objected objected to to me me presiding presiding over overthis this case case until until the the instant instant Statement of Statement of 22 Objection Objection and Motion to and Motion to Disqualify filed filed herein.
23 23 * * *
***
24 24 14.
14. That That my wife wife Doris Doris L.G.
L.G. Tolentino Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan werewere 25 divorced on divorced on June June 13, 13, 1997, andthat 1997, and thatthere therewere weretwo two minor minor children children at at the the time time of of the dissolution of marriage, to wit: Brandon (born marriage, to (bam 1990) and Angela 1990) and Angela (born 1992), 1992);
26 26 15. That my wife 15. wifeand andIIhave havebeen beentogether together since since 2001 2001 and and that that we were were married married 27 27 civilly civillyinin2005.
2005 and and eventually in in the the Roman Roman Catholic CatholicChurch Church in in December December2023 2023;, 28 16. That we have Eve 16. five children children inclusive of Brandon and Angela;
of Brandon Angela,
People People v. Quiehocho Quichocho Case No. CM0249-24 Case No. Decision Decision and and Order
Page 3 of7 of 1 17. That since since my my wife and I have have been been together together I have have never never observed Mr. Moylan Moylan and my wife involved involved in in any any sense sense inin co-parenting co-parenting the the children of their children of their marriage as 2 the children have been raised and provided with protection protection and care to ensure their 3 healthy development into healthy adulthood, primarily into adulthood, primarily by by my my wife and that wife and me, and that at at 4 present they are in fact adults able to adults able to conduct conduct and and make make their own own decisions in life;
life,
5 18. That based upon the 18. the foregoing foregoing averments, averments, the the fact fact that that Attorney Attorney General General Moylan is the biological father of of the the undersigned's undersigned's stepchildren provides no basis 6 for disqualification under for disqualification under 77 GCA GCA §§ 6105(b)
6l05(b) or or that the undersigned's that the undersigned's impartiality impartiality 7 might questioned as might be reasonably questioned as required under under subsection (a).
8 (Answer at (Answer at 3-4, Aug. 26, 2024).
9 Timeliness of B. Timeliness of Objection Objection
10 The first issue issue before before the the Court Court isis whether whether the the Government's Government's Objection was timely filed,
11 11 as Judge Tolentino Tolentino challenges challenges the the timeliness timeliness of of the the Government's Governlnent's Objection. (Answer at Objection. (Answer ,r,r 9-
at W
12 12 13). Pursuant 13). Pursuantro to section section 6107:
13 13 The statement ofof a party objecting to to the Justice Justice or Judge Judge on the ground ofof his or her disqualification shall be presented atat the the earliest earliest practicable practicable opportunity after after 14 her appearance his or her appearance and discovery of of the the facts facts constituting constituting the the ground of the 15 15 Justice's or Judge's Justice's Judge's disqualification, disqualification, and in any any event event before before the the commencement commencement of of the hearing of of any issue of of fact in the action or proceeding before such Justice or 16 16 Judge.
17 17 77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6107.
6107. "The "Therule rule that that aa request request for for disqualification disqualification should should be be submitted submitted prior prior to to any any 18 18 hearing in the matter before the challengedjudge judgerests restson onthe the principle principlethat that aa party may not gamble 19 19 on a favorable favorable decision. Thus, Thus, aa statement statement of of objection objection is is normally normally timely timely ifif itit is submitted prior 20 to any hearing before the challenged judge in the matter."
matter." Van Dox v.
v. Superior Cr. of Guam, Ct. of 21 2008 ,r 46 2008 Guam 77 11 46 (internal (internal quotation quotationmarks marksand and citation citationomitted).
omitted). "[A]
"[A] statement statement may be 22 untimely if if aa party party waits until the eve eve of of trial trial to to request request disqualification disqualification based on information 23 made known months earlier." Id (citing People v. Pariah, earlier." Id. Panah, 107 107 P.3d 790, 824 (Cal. 2005)).
24 Here, the Government's Goveinrnent's Statement Statement of of Objection was filed prior to to the the commencement commencement of of 25 fact in the hearing of any issue of fact in the the action action or orproceeding proceeding before before Judge Judge Tolentino.
Tolentino. The case was 26 assigned to Judge Tolentino on August 20, 2024, 2024, and and the the Government's Government's Statement of of Objection 27 27 the following was filed the following day, August August 21, 21, 2024.
2024. According According to the the Court's Court's case case management management system, 28
People v.
v. Quichocho Case No. CM0249-24 Case No. Decision Decision and and Order
Page 4 of7 of 7 l at the time of offiling filingofofthe theObjection, Objection,nonohearings hearingshad hadbeen beencalendared calendared or or heard heard before before Judge Judge
2 Tolentino inthe Tolentino in instant matter. However, the instant However,the theCourt Courtdoes doesnot notfind findthat thatthe thetimeliness timeliness.analysis _analysis ends ends
3 there.
there. The Thefacts facts that that form form the the basis of the Statement of of Objection Objection are not newly newly discovered discovered to the
4 Government and Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentino has has presided presidedover over criminal criminal matters matters involving involving the Government
5 since Attorney General General Moylan took office office in in January 2023. See January 2023. Answer,r1i4 SeeAnswer ("I ...
4 ("I .. have have been been aa
6 Judge of the Superior Court of Judge of ofGuam Guam since since September September 2021, 2021, and that that my my docket consists mostly
7 of ofcriminal criminal matters brought brought by bythe thePeople People of of Guam Guamthrough throughthe theOffice Office of of the the Attorney Attorney General.").
8 It It was not until over over aa year year later in May 2024 theGovernment 2024 that the Government first first moved to disqualify disqualify Judge Judge
9 Tolentino. See People v. Ybanez, et al.
v. Ybanez, al. (CF0447-23) Dec.
Dec. &&Order Orderat at5, 5, Jun.
Jun. 12, 2024 (noting (noting the
10 Statement of Objection Statement of Objectionand andMotion MotiontotoDisqualify Disqualifywas wasfiled filedon onMay May I,l, 2024).
2024). The The Government Government 11 11 has since moved has since disqualify Judge moved to disqualify Tolentino in Judge Tolentino in aa number number of ofcriminal criminal cases,2 but not cases,2 but not all all of bis his
3
12 criminal docket.3 Therefore, while Therefore, while the the timeliness timeliness of ofan objection would an objection would normally be case case specific, specific,
13 circumstances of the circumstances of the obi sectionsbeing objections beingfiled filedin insome somebut butnot notall allcases casesbefore before Judge JudgeTolentino, Tolentino,
14 despite the basis of ofall all obi sectionsbeing objections beingsubstantially substantiallythe thesame, same,require requirethe theCourt Courtto toview view them in
15 light of light ofhis his entire entire criminal criminal docket, docket, as all criminal matters arebrought matters are broughtby bythe theOffice Office of of the the Attorney Attorney
16 16 General on behalf General on behalf of of the People of the People "7 GCA Guam. "7 of Guam. GCA§§6105 6105 is is not not intended to 'bestow intended to 'bestow veto veto power power 17 17 over over judges or to be used as asaajudge judgeshopping shoppingdevice.'" San Agustin, 2024 Guam 2, ,r1i24 device."' San 24((citing citing 18 18 People People v.
v. Camaddu, ,r 80).
Camaddu, 2015 Guam 2 1[ 80).
19 19 "Guam "Guam law does does not not speak explicitly explicitly of ofwaiver, waiver, but but does does require require that that 'all parties parties agree.'
20 20 Rather than interpreting interpreting 'agree'
'agree' to tomean mean that that the parties must mustexpressly expressly agree agree to to waive the judge's
21 disqualification, we held that remaining disqualification, we silent constitutes remaining silent constituteswaiver, waiver, at at least leastin in the the context context of of 7
22
23 2 23 This Court, This Court, for forexample, example, has has been been assigned as recusaljudge recusal judge for for the the instant matter(CF0391-24), instantmatter People v.
(CF039l-24), People Buchun, v. Buchun, (CF0458-24), People v. (CF0458-24), v. Rik Rikat (CMOI93-24), People v.
at (CM0193-24), v. Ada (CF0520-24), People v.
(CF0520-24), People v. Timothy Timothy (CM0229-24), and and 24 24 People v. People v. Quichocho Quichocho (CM0249-24).
(CM0249-24). The TheStatement Statement of ofObjection Objectionfiled filedinineach eachcase case isis substantially substantially the same. Judge the same.
25 25 Tolentino's Answer Tolentino's Answeralso also refers refers to objections being being filed People v.
filed in People v. Mantanona (CM0203-24), People v.v.Babauta (CM0203-24); People Babita People v.
(CF0443-24); People v. Enlet En/et (CM0322-22); People v.
(CM0322-22); People v. Sarges Sanres (CF0461-24), People v.
(CF0461-24); People v. Rabago Rabago (CF0423-24);
(CF0423-24); and and 26 26 People v.
v. Alipich (CF0449-24). (Answer Allpich (CF0449-24). ,r 24).
(Answer '"24).
3 27 Judge Tolentino asserts Judge asserts in his his Answer that that "if there truly "if there truly is is concern concern with with the the undersigned's undersigned's impartiality impartiality or or appearance of partiality then by by movant's logic the movant's logic the disqualification disqualification should should have have extended extended to to the the undersigned's undersigned's entire entire 28 criminal docket of of pending and post-adjudication post-adjudication further furtherproceedings." ,r (Answer 1134).
proceedings." (Answer
People People v.
v. Quichocho Case No.
No. CM0249-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 5 of77
l G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§6l05(a), 6105(a),'to'toavoid avoidthe thepossibility possibilityofofparties partieslying lyingininwait, wait,raising raisingthe therecusal recusal issue issue only only 2 after learning learning the the court's ruling on court's ruling Onthe the merits."'
merits."' People v. Win, Wia, 2020 Guam Guam 17 ,r 28 (internal 17 1128 3 alterations andcitations alterations and citationsomitted).
omitted).In Inthe thecontext contextof of77G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6l05(b), 6105(b), the the Supreme Court of· Supreme Court of
4 Guam adopted adoptedthe the"silence-as-wavier"
"silence-as-wavier" rule on a case-by-case case-by-casebasis.
basis. Id Id at ,r 30. The at 1130. The "silence-as-
"silence-as-
s 5 waiver" includes waiver" failure to includes failure to object objectbased based on on information information previously previouslyknown knownto to the the parties parties through through 6 separate litigation. Id separate litigation. ,r 27 (finding Idatat1127 (findingthat that the the silence-as-waiver silence-as-waiverrule rule rendered rendered the the defendant's defendant's 7 objection objection waived waivedand and untimely untimely because because the defendant aware aware of the disqualification disqualification issue issue through 8 his counsel's involvement involvement in in other criminal cases).
9 in In his his Answer, Answer, Judge Judge Tolentino states states that he and that he Attorney General and Attorney General Moylan met in 10 December 2022 with December 2022 with court court administration andstaff administration and staffwhereby whereby"[i]t "[i]t was was agreed agreed that that the the 11 11 circumstances underlying[Judge circumstances underlying [JudgeTolentino's]
Tolentino's] recusal matters that recusal in matters thatMr.
Mr. Moylan Moylan was a lawyer
12 12 no longer longer existed."
existed." (Answer ,r 7).The (Answer117). TheGovernment Governmenthas hasnot notcontested contestedthis thisfaction fact inthis this matter matter nor 13 in any any of the the other cases assigned assignedto to this thisrecusal recusalcourt.
court. Thus, Thus, Attorney General General Moylan Moylan appears appears 14 14 to have waived any conflict waived any conflicton onbehalf behalfofofthe theGovernment Governmentprior priortotothe thestart startofofhis histerm termin inJanuary January 15 15 2023. At 2023. Atthis time,the thistime, Court isis unaware the Court unaware of ofany any objection objection set set forth forth by by the the Government Government to to Judge Judge 16 Tolentino presiding presiding over over any any criminal criminal matter matter prior to to People Peoplev.v.Ylnanez, Ybanez, CF0447-23, on May 1, CF0447-23, on 1, 17 17 2024. 4 The Government 2024.4 Government therefore did not move to to disqualify disqualify Judge Judge Tolentino in in any any criminal criminal 18 18 matter matter for sixteen months months after after Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan took office office (January 2023 to (January 2023 to April April
19 19 2024). The TheGovernment Governmenthas has not not presented presented any newly newly discovered discoveredfacts facts or orchange change in in circumstances circumstances 20 20 relating to the the familial relationship relationship between Judge Judge Tolentino and Attorney General Moylan Moylan that that 21 renderAttorney would render Attorney General GeneralMoylan'
Moylan'ss December 2022 2022waiver waiver of of any anyconflict conflict moot.
moot. The Court
22 22 further notes notes that thatwhile while the the issue issueof of Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's competency competency was was first first addressed addressed in People People 23 23 v.
v. Aguon, CMOl45-21 CM0 145-21 in in Spring Spring 2024, 2024, it it was was through through a motion filed filed by by the the defendant, defendant, not the 24
25 4 The Government Government has has not not shown shown that that itit has objected to Judge Tolentino presiding overover any any criminal criminal matter matter prior prior to 26 People v. Ybanez.
Ybanez. The The Court Court acknowledges acknowledges that that on May May 24, 24, 2024 2024 (twenty-three (twenty-three days days after after the filing of of an objection in Ybanez), the Government orally Ybanez), the orally agreed agreed with Defendant Taitingfong Taitingfong in CF0024-24 that Judge TolentinoTolentino was 27 disqualified from presiding over over her case in light of the familial familial relationship relationship between between Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino and Attorney Attorney General Moylan. See People v. Taitingfong Taitingfong (CF0024-24) Dec. & Order Order at 4 fn. l, Jun.
1, Jun. 4, 2024. It It does not appear does not 28 Government itself that the Government itself also filed an Objection to Judge Tolentino presiding presiding in in that matter. See id
v. Quichocho People v. Case No. CM0249-24 Case No. CM0249-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 6 of7 of 7 1 Government, and in Government, and in the the context context of of a Motion Motion to to Disqualify Disqualifythe the Prosecutor Prosecutor and and not aa ruling on on a 2 Statement of Objection Statement of Objection to to Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's competency.
competency. See Dec. & & Order Order at at 4-5, 4-5, People v.
v.
3 3 Aguon (CM0145-21),Apr.
Aguon (CMOl45¥2l), ("OnMarch 2024("Oh Apr.5,5,2024 March1,1,2024, 2024,the theCourt Courtheard heardnew newarguments arguments on on the the 4 Motion to Withdraw the Prosecutor.
Withdraw the Prosecutor. There, There, in addition to the addition to the issue issueof of AAG AAG Olan's Olan's alleged alleged 5 statements, Defendant asserted there statements, Defendant there had hadbeen beenan anundisclosed undisclosedfamilial familial relationship between between Judge Judge
6 Tolentino andDouglas Tolentino and Moylan...
DouglasMoylan ...").
"). AtAtthe thetime timeofof that thatDecision Decisionand andOrder Order in in CMOl45-21, CM0 145-21, 7 Judge Tolentino Judge Tolentino had had already alreadyrecused reused himself himself from from the the matter, matter, albeit albeit on on different different grounds.
grounds. See 8 id at id 2. In at 2. Inlight lightofofthe theforegoing, foregoing,the theCourt Courtfinds finds that that the the Government's Government's silence for for over over aa year, 9 despite being aware of the facts forming the basis of the disqualification, amounts to aawaiver amounts to waiver of of
10 any any objection to Judge objection to Tolentino presiding Judge Tolentino presidingover over cases casesinvolving involving the the Office Office of the the Attorney Attorney II 11 General General based based on the the familial familial relationship relationship between Judge Judge Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney General General 12 12 Moylan.
13 CONCLUSION
14 14 For the the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, the Court hereby hereby DENIES the the Government's Government's Statement Statement of 15 15 Objection Objection and Motion Motion to Disqualify.
Disqualify. The TheCourt Courtreturns returns the the matter matter to Judge Tolentino for Judge Tolentino for further further 16 16 disposition.
disposition.
~day ofofSeptember, 17 17 IT IS IS SO SO ORDERED ORDEREDthis this September, 2024.
2024:
18
19 19
20
21 HONORABLE HONORABLE VERNONVERNONP- P. PEREZ PEREZ Judge, Superior Co~~ Judge, Superior Court of of'Guam 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27
28
People v.
v. Quichocho Case-No. Case-No. CM0249-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 7 of7 of