Fl LE
2026 JUN 29 PM I;: 19 2
6 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0276-25 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) GPD Report No. 25-20286 ) 8 vs. ) ) 9 ) ) DECISION & ORDER 10 GODWIN LAWRENCE QUITUGUA, RE. PEOPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS ) DOB:02/28/1975 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11 ) ) 12 Defendant. ________________ )) 13
14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on March 4, 2026, for a Pre- 15 Trial Conference. Defendant Godwin Lawrence Quitugua ("Defendant") was present with 16 counsel Attorney Rawlen Mantanona. Assistant Attorney General Samuel Alexander was present 17
18 for the People of Guam ("People"). At the hearing, the court addressed the People's Motion to
19 Dismiss without Prejudice, which was filed that morning. The court dismissed this case but 20 reserved its ruling on the issue of prejudice until further briefing from the parties. Finding oral 21 arguments on the Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice unnecessary, the court took the matter 22 under advisement pursuant to Supreme Court of Guam Administrative Rule 06-001, CVR 23
24 7.l(e)(6)(A) and CRl.1 of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam. Having duly considered
25 the parties' briefings and the applicable law, the court now issues this Decision and Order 26 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART the People's Motion to Dismiss without 27 Prejudice. 28
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice People v. Quitugua, CM0276-25 Page 1 of6 BACKGROUND
2 Based on events that occurred on or about August 15, 2025, the Defendant was charged
3 with ASSAULT (As a Misdemeanor) and FAMILY VIOLENCE (As a Misdemeanor). See 1st 4 Amended Magistrate's Compl. (Aug. 18, 2025). 5 On February 4, 2026, the parties represented to the court that both were ready to proceed 6
7 with trial as scheduled. See Further Proceedings Mins. at 10: 10:46AM (Feb. 4, 2026). At the Pre-
8 Trial Conference, addressed the People's Motion to Dismiss ("Motion to Dismiss"), which was
9 filed that morning. See Pre-Trial Conference Mins. at 9:20:40AM (Mar. 4, 2026). However, the 10 Defendant objected to it, seeking dismissal with prejudice instead. Id Ultimately, the court II granted this case's dismissal but allowed the parties additional time to brief the issue of prejudice 12
13 in accordance with its deadlines stated on the record. Id
14 The Defendant subsequently filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss ("Opposition") 15 on March 9, 2026. Shortly after, the People submitted its Response to the Defendant's Opposition 16 ("Response"). Upon reviewing the parties' briefs on the issue of prejudice, the court took the 17 matter under advisement finding oral arguments unnecessary. 18
20 Under 8 GCA § 80.70: 21 The prosecuting attorney may with leave of court file a dismissal of an indictment, 22 information or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate. Such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant. The 23 prosecuting attorney shall file a statement of his reasons for seeking dismissal when he applies for leave to file a dismissal and where leave is granted the court's order 24 shall set forth the reasons for granting such leave. 25 8 GCA § 80.70(a). "The principal object of the 'leave of court' requirement is apparently to 26
27 protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging,
28 when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's objection." People v.
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice People v. Quitugua, CM0276-25 Page 2 of6 Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 ,r 49 (quoting Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n. 15 (1977)).
2 Although the Defendant does not object to this case's dismissal, he objected to its dismissal
3 without prejudice, which he further reasoned in his written Opposition. Because the People filed 4 its Motion to Dismiss without leave of court as required under 8 GCA § 80.70(a), dismissal under 5 this authority is not appropriate. 6
7 Within the Motion to Dismiss, the People state that there is good cause to dismiss this case
8 without prejudice, because "[t]he alleged victim, a critical and material witness has expressed
9 both verbally and in writing that they do not wish to testify, and a desire to have the charges 10 against Defendant dropped." See Ppl.'s Mot. Dismiss at 1 (Mar. 4, 2026). In his Opposition, the 11 Defendant argues that dismissal should be with prejudice, because the People continued this 12
13 prosecution despite possessing this information about the victim's desire not to testify and to drop
14 the charges for about a month before filing its Motion to Dismiss. See Def.'s Opp'n at 3 (Mar. 9, 15 2026). 16 "The prosecutor's good or bad faith in bringing the motion is the determining factor in 17 granting or denying the motion." Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 ,r 51. Specifically, the issue is 18
19 "whether the Government's later efforts to terminate the prosecution were similarly tainted with
20 impropriety." Id (quoting Rinaldi, 434 U.S. at 30, 98 S. Ct. at 85). While there is a "'presumption 21 that [the prosecutor] is acting in good faith and in the proper discharge of his duties ... 'it can 22 be rebutted if a lack of good faith is shown." Id ,r 51-53 (quoting United States v. Greater Blouse, 23
24 Skirt & Neckwear Contractors Ass'n, 228 F.Supp. 483, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1964); see also United
25 States v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 1982)). "Once bad faith in bringing the motion is
26 found, the court may conclude that the prosecutor's actions would result in harassment, thereby 27
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice People v. Quitugua, CM0276-25 Page 3 of6 warranting the denial of the government's motion to dismiss." Id. ,r 54 (citing Salinas, 693 F.2d
2 at 351).
3 As a preliminary matter, the People requested the court to take judicial notice of the 4 presumption of good faith. See Ppl.'s Response at 2. Judicial Notice under Guam Rule of 5 Evidence ("GRE") 201 only governs an adjudicative fact; "one not subject to reasonable dispute 6
7 in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2)
8 capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be
9 reasonably be questioned." Guam R. Evid. 201(a)-(b). While this court can take judicial notice 10 of the presumption of good faith as addressed by the Supreme Court of Guam in People v. 11 Gutierrez, the People's presumption of good faith in this case is not the type of adjudicative fact 12
13 that the court can take judicial notice of.
14 In stating that the People have possessed information regarding the alleged victims since 15 February 3, 2026, the Defendant argued that continuing this prosecution "left him to fear for his 16 future freedom, reputation and the pressure of prosecution, forcing him to expend his resources 17 to prepare a defense for a case, to prove his innocence, knowing they couldn't move forward." 18
19 Def.' s Opp 'n at 3-4. Attached to his Opposition was a Declaration of Counsel, declaring under
20 penalty of perjury the following timeline of events in relevant part: 21 4. On October 31, 2025[,] I met with a member of the Attorney General's Office 22 Prosecution Division to discuss the case *** I explained that the assault victim denied being assaulted and the version *** of Ms. Mendiola. The Attorney 23 General's Office said they would consider recommending a Deferred Plea to 24 Domestic Violence.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fl LE
2026 JUN 29 PM I;: 19 2
6 ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0276-25 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) GPD Report No. 25-20286 ) 8 vs. ) ) 9 ) ) DECISION & ORDER 10 GODWIN LAWRENCE QUITUGUA, RE. PEOPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS ) DOB:02/28/1975 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11 ) ) 12 Defendant. ________________ )) 13
14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on March 4, 2026, for a Pre- 15 Trial Conference. Defendant Godwin Lawrence Quitugua ("Defendant") was present with 16 counsel Attorney Rawlen Mantanona. Assistant Attorney General Samuel Alexander was present 17
18 for the People of Guam ("People"). At the hearing, the court addressed the People's Motion to
19 Dismiss without Prejudice, which was filed that morning. The court dismissed this case but 20 reserved its ruling on the issue of prejudice until further briefing from the parties. Finding oral 21 arguments on the Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice unnecessary, the court took the matter 22 under advisement pursuant to Supreme Court of Guam Administrative Rule 06-001, CVR 23
24 7.l(e)(6)(A) and CRl.1 of the Local Rules of the Superior Court of Guam. Having duly considered
25 the parties' briefings and the applicable law, the court now issues this Decision and Order 26 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART the People's Motion to Dismiss without 27 Prejudice. 28
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice People v. Quitugua, CM0276-25 Page 1 of6 BACKGROUND
2 Based on events that occurred on or about August 15, 2025, the Defendant was charged
3 with ASSAULT (As a Misdemeanor) and FAMILY VIOLENCE (As a Misdemeanor). See 1st 4 Amended Magistrate's Compl. (Aug. 18, 2025). 5 On February 4, 2026, the parties represented to the court that both were ready to proceed 6
7 with trial as scheduled. See Further Proceedings Mins. at 10: 10:46AM (Feb. 4, 2026). At the Pre-
8 Trial Conference, addressed the People's Motion to Dismiss ("Motion to Dismiss"), which was
9 filed that morning. See Pre-Trial Conference Mins. at 9:20:40AM (Mar. 4, 2026). However, the 10 Defendant objected to it, seeking dismissal with prejudice instead. Id Ultimately, the court II granted this case's dismissal but allowed the parties additional time to brief the issue of prejudice 12
13 in accordance with its deadlines stated on the record. Id
14 The Defendant subsequently filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss ("Opposition") 15 on March 9, 2026. Shortly after, the People submitted its Response to the Defendant's Opposition 16 ("Response"). Upon reviewing the parties' briefs on the issue of prejudice, the court took the 17 matter under advisement finding oral arguments unnecessary. 18
20 Under 8 GCA § 80.70: 21 The prosecuting attorney may with leave of court file a dismissal of an indictment, 22 information or complaint and the prosecution shall thereupon terminate. Such a dismissal may not be filed during the trial without the consent of the defendant. The 23 prosecuting attorney shall file a statement of his reasons for seeking dismissal when he applies for leave to file a dismissal and where leave is granted the court's order 24 shall set forth the reasons for granting such leave. 25 8 GCA § 80.70(a). "The principal object of the 'leave of court' requirement is apparently to 26
27 protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging,
28 when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant's objection." People v.
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice People v. Quitugua, CM0276-25 Page 2 of6 Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 ,r 49 (quoting Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n. 15 (1977)).
2 Although the Defendant does not object to this case's dismissal, he objected to its dismissal
3 without prejudice, which he further reasoned in his written Opposition. Because the People filed 4 its Motion to Dismiss without leave of court as required under 8 GCA § 80.70(a), dismissal under 5 this authority is not appropriate. 6
7 Within the Motion to Dismiss, the People state that there is good cause to dismiss this case
8 without prejudice, because "[t]he alleged victim, a critical and material witness has expressed
9 both verbally and in writing that they do not wish to testify, and a desire to have the charges 10 against Defendant dropped." See Ppl.'s Mot. Dismiss at 1 (Mar. 4, 2026). In his Opposition, the 11 Defendant argues that dismissal should be with prejudice, because the People continued this 12
13 prosecution despite possessing this information about the victim's desire not to testify and to drop
14 the charges for about a month before filing its Motion to Dismiss. See Def.'s Opp'n at 3 (Mar. 9, 15 2026). 16 "The prosecutor's good or bad faith in bringing the motion is the determining factor in 17 granting or denying the motion." Gutierrez, 2005 Guam 19 ,r 51. Specifically, the issue is 18
19 "whether the Government's later efforts to terminate the prosecution were similarly tainted with
20 impropriety." Id (quoting Rinaldi, 434 U.S. at 30, 98 S. Ct. at 85). While there is a "'presumption 21 that [the prosecutor] is acting in good faith and in the proper discharge of his duties ... 'it can 22 be rebutted if a lack of good faith is shown." Id ,r 51-53 (quoting United States v. Greater Blouse, 23
24 Skirt & Neckwear Contractors Ass'n, 228 F.Supp. 483, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 1964); see also United
25 States v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 1982)). "Once bad faith in bringing the motion is
26 found, the court may conclude that the prosecutor's actions would result in harassment, thereby 27
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice People v. Quitugua, CM0276-25 Page 3 of6 warranting the denial of the government's motion to dismiss." Id. ,r 54 (citing Salinas, 693 F.2d
2 at 351).
3 As a preliminary matter, the People requested the court to take judicial notice of the 4 presumption of good faith. See Ppl.'s Response at 2. Judicial Notice under Guam Rule of 5 Evidence ("GRE") 201 only governs an adjudicative fact; "one not subject to reasonable dispute 6
7 in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2)
8 capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be
9 reasonably be questioned." Guam R. Evid. 201(a)-(b). While this court can take judicial notice 10 of the presumption of good faith as addressed by the Supreme Court of Guam in People v. 11 Gutierrez, the People's presumption of good faith in this case is not the type of adjudicative fact 12
13 that the court can take judicial notice of.
14 In stating that the People have possessed information regarding the alleged victims since 15 February 3, 2026, the Defendant argued that continuing this prosecution "left him to fear for his 16 future freedom, reputation and the pressure of prosecution, forcing him to expend his resources 17 to prepare a defense for a case, to prove his innocence, knowing they couldn't move forward." 18
19 Def.' s Opp 'n at 3-4. Attached to his Opposition was a Declaration of Counsel, declaring under
20 penalty of perjury the following timeline of events in relevant part: 21 4. On October 31, 2025[,] I met with a member of the Attorney General's Office 22 Prosecution Division to discuss the case *** I explained that the assault victim denied being assaulted and the version *** of Ms. Mendiola. The Attorney 23 General's Office said they would consider recommending a Deferred Plea to 24 Domestic Violence.
25 5. On January 20, 2026[,] the defense provided the Attorney General's Office Prosecution Division its discovery including videos in the early morning hour at 26 the Acanta Mall on August 15, 2025, and Mr. Bamba's Attorney's letter as to his 27 denial of assault by the Defendant and not witnessing Ms. Mendiola's assault or failing to corroborate her statement. 28
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice People v. Quitugua, CM0276-25 Page 4 of6 6. On February 10, 2026, the defense received supplement[al] discovery of Ms. Mendiola's oral statement to Attorney General's Investigator and written statement 2 that she didn't want to proceed with pressing charges and going to Trial.
3 7. [O]n February 4, 2026, Declarant received an email saying that Defendant was 4 eligible for Domestic Violence Deferred Plea.
5 8. [O]n March 3, 2026 at 5:08pm I received an email from the Attorney General's Office that they intend to file a Motion to Dismiss the above caption case without 6 prejudice. 7 Deel. (Mar. 9, 2026). Despite this, the People argue that "the defendant has suffered no detriment 8 due to delay or harassment." Ppl. 's Response at 2. The People further argue that the presumption 9
of good faith should apply here, because "there is no 'substantial evidence' or 'clear evidence to
11 the contrary."' Id 12 In this case, there was at least a three-week gap in time between the Defendant's receipt 13 of both victims' desire not to proceed with the case and the People's Motion to Dismiss. However, 14 the People received this information after the court's deadline to file motions passed on February 15
16 2, 2026. See Criminal Trial Scheduling Order (Oct. 16, 2025). While the court admonishes the
17 People for filing a Motion to Dismiss on the eve of trial and without leave of court, the court does 18 not believe a three-week delay in terminating this prosecution was tainted with impropriety. 19 After considering the circumstances leading up to dismissal and the parties' arguments, 20
the court finds that the People did not act in bad faith when moving to dismiss this case. Although 21
22 the People acted in good faith, the court also finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate in
23 light of alleged victims' denial of the assault and desire to drop the charges as stated in the 24 Defendant's Declaration of Counsel. 25 \\ 26
27 \\
28 \\
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice People v. Quitugua, CM0276-25 Page 5 of6 CONCLUSION
2 For reasons stated above, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
3 the People's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice. The court hereby orders that the above- 4 captioned matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5
7 No further proceeding is scheduled before this court.
9 JUN 2 9 2026 SO ORDERED - - - - - - - - - - -
14 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO Judge, Superior Court of Guam 15
Decision & Order Re. People's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice People v. Quitugua, CM0276-25 Page 6 of6