FILED CLERK GF cLERK OF COURT
11 202G AUG ·29 202|eAUG 2: 18
Pfif2: 29 PM 18
2 SUPERIOR-QQLlPj° SUPERIOR 1COURT
3 OF:GlJAM~ FGUAM /
IN THE SUPERIOR
SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF GUAM
4
5 5 THE PEOPLE OF OF GUAM,
GUAM,
6 Case No.
No. CF0479-24
7 vs.
8 BENIF ACIO RANUK BENIFACIO RANUK, DECISION ECISION AND
AND ORDER
ORDER
. R k ' -~ · R uk k (Answer to OAG's OAG's Statement
Statement of
of Objection)
(aka a Tium Rengaw, engaw; aka
a a Bonifacio
8 om1ac10 Renuk,
en ; aka
a
9 Bonifasio Renuk, Renuk; aka
aka Renuk
Renuk Bonifasio,
Bonifasio; aka
aka
10 Bonifaisio A.
A. Ranuk),
Ranuk),
DOB: DOB:11/28/1972 11/28/1972 aka
aka02/28/1973
02/28/1973
11 11
12 12 Defendant.
13 13
14 14 INTRODUCTION
15 15
1
16 16 This matter came before matter came before the
the Honorable
HonorableJohn
Jolt C. Terlaje
Terlaje on
on August
August l19
9"',
\ 2024,
2024, for aa
17 17 Motion Hearing regardingthe Hearing regarding theOffice Office of
of the
the Attorney
Attorney General's ("OAG's") Statement General's ("OAG's") Statement of
18 18 Objection ("Objection"), in in which
which the
the OAG
OAG objects
objects to
to the
the Honorable
Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino Tolentino
19 19 ("Judge Tolentino")
Tolentino") presiding
presiding over
overthe
theabove-captioned
above-captioned matter
matter due
due to
to his
his relationship
relationship with
with
20 Attorney General Attorney General Douglas DouglasMoylan
Moylan("AG
("AG Moylan"
Moylan" or
or "then-Attomey
"then-Attorney Moylan").
Moylan"). Upon
Upon
21 consideration of the the arguments
arguments and applicable
applicable Guam law, the Court hereby DENIES OAG's OAG's
22 Objection. As As such,
such, Judge Tolentino may Judge Tolentino may continue continue to preside over
over this
this matter.
23 BACKGROUND
24 24 This case began on July This July 9, 9, 2024,
2024,when
whenthe
theAttorney
Attorney General
General of
of Guam accused
accusedBenifacio
Benifacio
25 25 Ranuk ("Defendant")
("Defendant") with
with Possession
Possession of
ofaa Schedule
Schedule II
II Controlled
Controlled Substance 3rd Degree (As aa 3'd
Substance (As
26
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
Case Case No. CF0479-24,People CF0479-24, Peoplev.v.Ben yfacio Ranuk Benifacio Ranuk
Page 1 of14
Magistrate's Con
Felony). Magistrate's Compl. (Jul. 9, pl. (Jul. 9, 2024).
2024). The
The matter
matter was
was assigned
assigned to Judge
Judge Tolentino
Tolentino on
2 nd
1st, 2024.
August let, 2024. Notice Notice of J.
J. Assignment 1, 2024). Then, on August Assignment (Aug. 1, August 2"d, 2024,'the 2024,'the OAG
3 4 tiled a Statement of Objection and Motion to Disqualify Judge Tolentino based on his alleged filed 4 5 relationship with AG relationship with Moylan. Statement AG Moylan. Statement of
of Obj.
Obj. 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6107
6107 &
& Mot.
Mot. to
to Disqualify.
Disqualify. (Aug.
(Aug. 2,
2,
5
66 2024). Judge 2024). Judge Tolentino Tolentino answered the Statement of Objection answered the Objection on August 5, 2024. Answer to
7 Statement of Obj.
Statement of Obj. (Aug. 5, 2024). The matter was assigned assignedtotothis
thisCourt
Court in
in the
the limited
limited capacity
8 ofRecusal Recusal Judge on the same day. Notice Notice of Assignment
Assignment ofRecusal
Recusal J. (Aug.
(Aug. 5,
5, 2024).
2024). The
The OAG
OAG
99 responded to Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's answer
answer on
on August
August 12,
12, 2024.
2024. People's
People's Resp.
Resp. to
to J.J. Tolentino's
Tolentino's
10 Answer to Answer to Statement Statement of
of Obi.
Obj. 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6107
6107 & Mot. to
& Mot. Disqualify (Aug.
to Disqualify (Aug. 12,
12, 2024). Defendant
2024). Defendant
11 gave their answer as well on on August
August 13,
13, 2024.
2024. Def.'s Resp. to Gov't's Statement of of Obj. (Aug.
12 12 13, 2024). 13, 2024). The CCourt our tthen took t he
hen t ook the ma
matter
t t er ofofJudge
JudgeT olent
Tolentino's disqualification ino's disqua lifica t under under
13 13 1
advisement.
14 14 Attorney General A. Attorney General Moylan's Moylan's Relationship
Relationship with Judge Tolentino 15 15
It is undisputed that
that Judge
Judge Tolentino
Tolentino is
is married
married to
to AG Moylan's ex-wife,
ex-wife, Doris
Doris L.G.
L.G.
16 16
17 17 Tolentino ("Doris"), and that Judge Judge Tolentino
Tolentino is the stepfather stepfather to
to AG
AG Moylan's
Moylan's two children,
children,
18 Brandon Brandon (born (born 1990)
1990) and
and Angela
Angela (born
(born 1992).
1992). Answer
Answer to
to Statement
Statement of
ofObj.
Obj. at
at 33 (Aug. 2, 2024).
19 AG Moylan and Doris divorced divorced in
in 1997,
1997, and then, in 2005, Doris remarried to Judge Tolentino, 20 20 who remains her husband to this day.
day. Id.
Id As
As recently
recently as
as October
October 2022, prior to
to AG
AG Moylan's
21 election, Judge election, Judge Tolentino disqualified disqualified himself from cases involving then-Attorney Moylan in 22 private practice, practice, because
because "Douglas Moylan, Esq., is the father of the father of my
my step-children."
step-children." Id. at 24-26, Id at
23 Exs. A-C.
24 A month
month later,
later, on
on November
November 8,
8, 2022,
2022, then-Attomey
then-Attorney Moylan
Moylan was
was elected
elected Attorney
Attorney
25 26 General of Guam and became AG Moylan, taking office in January 2023.
2023. Id.
Id at 2. Before being
26
27 Decision and Decision and Order
Case No. CF0479-24, People v.
v. Benifacio
Benacio Ranuk
Ranuk
Page 2 of 14 Page 14 swam sworn in in as
as Attorney General,
General, however,
however, then-Attorney
then-Attorney Moylan
Moylanrequested
requested aa meeting
meeting with
with Judge
Judge
2 Tolentino in 2022. Id The in December 2022. The meeting meeting took
took place
place in
in Judge
Judge Tolentino's
Tolentino's chambers
chambers with
3 the Administrator the Administrator of Courts, Courts, Judge
Judge Tolentino's chamber chamber staff, and
and then-Attorney
then-Attorney Moylan's
4
5 transition chairperson,Mr. transition chairperson, Mr.Wilfred Id According Wilfred Aflague. Id AccordingtotoJudge JudgeTolentino,
Tolentino,and
andundisputed
undisputed
6 6 the OAG, by the OAG,then-Attorney then-Attorney Moylan
Moylan "assured
"assured [Judge
[Judge Tolentino]
Tolentino] and
and the
the other
other members
members in
7 attendance thathe attendance that heperceived perceivedno
noconflict
conflict in his election
election as
as Attorney
Attorney General
General and
and the
the prosecution
8 of of criminal cases before criminal cases before [Judge [JudgeTolentino's
Tolentino'sCourt]."
Court]."Id
Id Accordingly,
Accordingly, since
since AG
AG Moylan
Moylan took
9 office officein inJanuary
January 2023, Judge
JudgeTolentino
Tolentino has
haspresided
presidedover
over aamyriad
myriad of
of criminal cases all without 10 statements statements ofofobjection objectionfrom
fromthe tAG',1, until
theOAG until now.
now. Only
Only recently
recently has the OAG
has the OAG begun to file begun to
11 11 statements objections2 and of objection
statements of only recently has and only JudgeTolentino has Judge Tolentino been disqualified because because of his
12 12 relationship withAG relationship with AG Moylan.
13 13 B. Recent
RecentDecisions
Decisions Regarding Judge Judge Tolentino's
Tolentin0's Disqualification Disqualification
14 14 The first ever
ever disqualification
disqualification of
ofJudge
Judge Tolentino
Tolentino (based
(based on
on his
his relationship with
15 15 16 AG Moylan)
AG Moylan)did didnot
not arise
arise out
out of
ofan objection from
an objection from the
the OAG,
OAG, but
but out
out of
ofan
an objection
objection
16 from aa Defendant.
Defendant. On April
April 5,
5, 2024,
2024, for
for the
the first
first time,
time, aacourt
court found
found that
that "a
"a reasonable
reasonable
17 17
18 18 person could question whether whether Judge
JudgeTolentino
Tolentino could be impartial impartial in a case proceeding
19 19 at the the direction direction of
of [AG]
[AG] Moylan"
Moylan"due
duetotothe
thefact
factthat
that Judge
Judge Tolentino is stepfather to to AG
AG
20 Moylan's children. People of Moylan's children. Guam v.v. Nakita of Guam Nikita T Aguon, Aguon, CM0145-21
CM0145-21 at 8 (Super.
(Super. Ct.
21 Guam. Guam. April 5, 5, 2024).
2024). The
The Honorable
Honorable Joseph
Joseph N.
N. Camacho,
Camacho, serving
serving as
as Judge
Judge Pro
Pro
22 Tempore, issued Tempore, the Decision issued the Decision and Order after and Order after Nakita
Nakita T. Aguon,
Aguon, the
the Defendant
Defendant in
in the
the
23
24 11 See SeeAnswer Answerto to Statement
Statement ofof Obi.
Obj. at 66 (Jul. 29, 2024)
(Jul. 29, 2024) citing
citing People v.v. Balatico, Balatico, Crim. Case No. CM0188-24;
Case No. CM0188-24, People v. Rosal, Royal, Crim. Case CF0270-24, and People v. Rik Case No. CF0270-24, at, Crim. Case Rikat, No. CF0423-24 Case No. CF0423-24 and
and Shane
ShaneTenorio
Tenorio Healy,
Healy,
25 "Akoma trial:
trial: Judge denies admission of AG AG evidence", evidence", Marianas Variety, November 23, 2023, 2023, Akoma trial: Judge denies admission admission of AG evidence I News AG evidence News I Marianas Variety News News & Views (mvarietv.com).
(mvariety.com).
26 22 SeePeople See Peopleof of Guam Guam v.v. Richard
Richard K
Y. Yabnez,
Yabnez, et. aLal, CF0447-23 at 5-6 (Super. Ct. Guam.
Guam. June
June 12,
12, 2024).
2024).
27 Decision Decision andand Order
Case No.No. CF0479-24, PeoplePeople v. v. Benzfacio Benifacio Ranuk
Page 3 of of 14
1 case, argued during case, during a hearing hearing on March
March 1,
1, 2024,
2024, that
that "there
"there had
had been
been an
an undisclosed
undisclosed
2 2 familial relationship relationship between
betweenJudge
JudgeTolentino
Tolentinoand
andDouglas
DouglasMoylan ... " Id
Moylan..." at 4-5.
Id at
3 Then, on May 1,
1, 2024,
2024, for the
the first time during
during AG
AG Moylan's tenure as Attorney Moylan's tenure
4 General, the General, the OAG filed aaStatement OAG filed Statement of ofObjection
Objection against
against Judge
Judge Tolentino
Tolentino in aa
5 government corruption con'uption case,
case,based
basedon
onJudge
JudgeTolentino's
Tolentino'srelationship
relationshipwith
withAG
AGMoylan's
Moylan's
6 7 children.See People of children. See People ofGuam Guam v. Richard
Richard Y Ybanez,
Ybanez, et. al, CF0447-23 CF0447-23 at
at 5-6 (Super.
(Super. Ct.
7 Guam. June 12, Guam. June 12, 2024).
2024). The
The objection took place several several days
days after
after Judge
Judge Tolentino
8
9 9 disqualified the OAG disqualified the OAG itself over over aa conflict
conflict of
ofinterest
interest in the same case. Id same case. Id at
at 5. The
10 Statement of Objection Statement of Objection cited cited the
the precedent
precedent set by Aguon aa few weeks weeks earlier. Id at
earlier. Id at 6.
11 11 Ultimately, Ultimately, the the Honorable
Honorable Maria
Maria T.
T.Cenzon
Cenzondenied
deniedthe
the Statement
Statement of
ofObjection
Objectionon
onJune
June
112 12, 12, 2024, holding that 2024, holding that Judge
JudgeTolentino
Tolentinowas
wasnot
notdisqualified
disqualifiedunder
under77GCA
GCA §§ 6105(a)
6105(a) or
or
13 13 (b), (b), and and that even if
that even if he
he was,
was, the OAG's Objection
the OAG's Objection was
was untimely
untimely under
under 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6107
6107
14 14 and constituted waiver. Id constitutedaawaiver. Id at at 23.
15 15
Concurrently, on May 21, Concurrently, on 21, 2024, 2024, aa Defendant
Defendant in
in another
another case,
case, similar to the
the
116 6
17 Defendant Defendant in Aguon, filed an an Amended
Amended Objection
Objection on Judge Tolentino as Judge Tolentino See as well. See
17
18 18 People Guam v.v. Corina People of Guam Carina Jamel Jamel Taitingfong,
Taitingfong, et
Eral.al.("Taitingfong''), ("Taitingfong"), CF0024-24 at 4
19 19 (Super.
(Super. Ct. Guam.
Guam. June 4, 2024).
June 4, 2024). The
The Honorable
Honorable Elyze
Elyse M.
M. Iriarte,
Iriarte, sitting
sitting as
as aa recusal
recusal
20 20 Judge, issued Judge, issuedaa Decision Decision and
and Order
Order finding
finding for
for the
the Defendant that "[b
Defendant that "[b]ecause of aa ]ecause of
21 reasonable perception that reasonable perception that Judge Judge Tolentino
Tolentino continues
continues a co-parental
co-parental connection with 22 Attorney General Attorney General Moylan despite despite the
the maturation
maturation of their
their mutual
mutual children, he is
children, he is
23 2 disqualified, and such disqualified, and such disqualification disqualificationhas
hasnot
notbeen
beenwaived
waived nor
nor can
can it be
be cured
cured
24 25 retroactively through an anethical
ethicalwall."
wall." Id
Id at
at 8.
25
26
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
Case No.
No. CF0479-24, People v.v. Benifacio Benacio Ranuk
Ranuk
Page 44 of
of 14
1 Finally, on on July
July 18, 2024,(two
18, 2024, (two weeks
weeks before
before the
the OAG
OAG filed
filed their
their Statement
Statement of
2 2 Objection Objection in in this case 3 the
this cases) the Guam
Guam Supreme
Supreme Court issued an Opinion in San San Agustin v.
3 Superior Court, finding that that since Judge
Judge Tolentino
Tolentlno had previously dlsquahfied disqualified himself
4 from the from the case, based on his his close
close relationship
relationship with the Defendants, that the the Court
Court "lacked
"lacked
5 to act
jurisdiction to act while while the
the judge
judge is
is disqualified." San Augustin, 2024 Guam 2 at ,rii 19.
disqualified."San
6 7 The Guam Supreme Supreme Court
Court explained
explained that
thatthey
theywere
were using
usingtheir
theirsupervisory
supervisory authority
authority"to
"to
7 8 8 clarify clarify that that aa disqualified
disqualified judge
judgeshould
should not
not be
be appointed
appointed as
as a recusal
recusaljudge." ,r 36.
judge." Id. atat1]
9 9 In In the wake of ofthese
these recent
recent decisions,
decisions, this
this Court
Court now
nowtakes
takes up
up the same issue
issue of
of whether
10 Judge Tolentino Judge Tolentino should be be disqualified
disqualified based
basedhis
hisrelationship
relationshipwith
withAG
AG Moylan.
Moylan.
11 11 DISCUSSION
12 12 7 GCA §§6105 7 GCA 6105 provides
provides the
the substantive
substantive grounds for disqualification grounds for disqualification of ofaaJudge
Judge in
in Guam.
Guam.
13
14 7 GCA §§6105(a)
7 GCA 6105(a) states in full:
states in full:
14
15 15 Any Judge shall disqualify himself or herself Judge shall herself in in any proceeding in in which his or her impartiality might reasonably impartiality might reasonably bebe questioned, questioned,but butif,
if, following
following complete
complete
16 16 disclosure to all parties in the the proceeding
proceeding of
of the reasons
reasonsfor
for disqualification,
disqualification, all
parties agree to having the the Judge continue to
Judge continue to sit in the proceedings, he or she she
17 17 need not disqualify himself or herself.
18 18 See See 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6105(a).
6105(a).
19 19 The Supreme Supreme Court of Guam, Guam, in interpreting
interpreting this section, section, explained that
that "what
"what matters
matters is
is 'the
20 appearance of bias,' not 'actual bias."' Dizon 'actual bias."' Dizon v.
v. Superior
Superior Court,
Court, 1998
1998 Guam ,r 10 (emphasis Guam 33 1]
21 added). "[N]o actual added). "[N]o actualshowing showingofofbias
biasisisnecessary
necessary for
forrecusal
recusal to lie."IdId.'H,r10.
to lie." 10. Instead, Instead, the Court
22 must focus on "whether must focus "whether aa reasonable reasonable person would have a reasonable basis basis for questioning the 23
24 Judge's impartiality, not whether the Judge Judge isis impartial."
impartial."People
People v.
v. Tennessean,
Tennessean, 2010 Guam 12
24
25 25 'H,r 33 33 citingUnited citing United States
States v.v. Cherry,
Cherry, 330 F.3d 658,
330 F.3d 658, 665
665 (4
(4th
th Cir. 2003).
Cir. 2003).
26 3 3 Statementof Statement of Obj.
Obj. 77 GCA
GCA§§6107
6107&&Mot.
Mot.to
to Disqualify.
Disqualify. (Aug,
(Aug. 2,
2, 2024).
2024).
27 Decision Decision andand Order
Case No.
No. CF0479-24,
CF0479-24,People v.v. Benifacio Benacio Ranuk
Ranuk
Page 5 of 14
In Guam, a Judge is mandated mandated to disclose any facts facts which
which disqualify them
them under Section
2 6105, if 6105, such grounds if such grounds exist.
exist. 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6106.
6106. When
When such grounds exist
such grounds and aa Judge exist and Judge fails to declare fails to declare
3 4 them as them required, any as required, file aa statement may file
party may
any party statement of of objection
objection under
under 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6107.
6107. The
The Supreme
Supreme
4 Court of Guam Court of Guam has has described
described the procedure prescribed the procedure prescribed by by 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6107
6107 as follows:
as follows:
5
6 Pursuant to 7 GCA 6107, if a judge judge does not recuse himself, thenthen a party may, 'at the earliest practicable practicable opportunity,'
opportunity] 'file ... a written statement statement obiobjecting to 7 the ... Judge.
Judge.' ' The
he written
itten sta tement must
statement must 'set[
'set[ ]] forth
th the fa fact or
or fa cts
facts
constituting the ground of of the disqualification of of such ... Judge,' and must be 8 served on the Judge. Within Within 'ten
'ten (1
(1 0) days after the service ... or ... filing of of any
9 statement, whichever
whichever isis later
later in time,' a Judge may file a 'written answer,' which which a must be 'verified in the manner manner prescribed
prescribed for
for the verification ofof pleadings.' If 10 the Judge opposes hishis own own disqualification,
disqualification, then
then 'the
'the question
question of
of the
the... Judge's
... Judge's
disqualification shall be be heard
heard andand determined
determined byby some other Judge.'
11 11 See Van Dox See Van Dox v. Ct., 2008 Guam 7 i!1117 v. Superior Cr., (internalcitations 17 (internal citations omitted).
omitted).
12 12
In the same case, the Guam Supreme Supreme Court
Court made
made clear
clear that
that "with
"with respect
respect to the statutory
13 18
14 14 provision ovis ion requiring equ ir ing that
ha t dis qu a lif ic a t ionbe disqualification b e urged r ged aat t he
the ' ea'earliest
r lies t p rpracticable
a c t ic a b le
15 15 opportunity," the intention 'is clear that failure opportunity,' the failure to to comply with the provision constitutes
16 16 waiver."' Id.
a waiver."' Id ,i 14040 citing v. Pac.
citing Caminetti v. Mut. Ins.
Pay. Mai. Ins. CO.
CO of
of Cal., 139
139 P.2d 930, 933
17 17 (Cal. 1943). Therefore, the the Court
Court must
must first
first determine
determine whether
whether the
the OAG waived their
1943). Therefore,
18 18 objection under 7 objection under 7 GCA GCA §§ 6107,
6107, and
and then
then determine
determine whether
whether there
there is
is an
an appearance
appearance of
of
19 19 bias under under 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6105.
6105.
20 A. Did
Did the
the OAG
OAG Fail
Fail toto File
File atatthe
the'Earliest
'Earliest Practicable
Practicable Opportunity,'
Opportunity,' and
21 Therefore Waive Their Statement Statement of of Objection Under Under 7 GCA 6107?
22 The Court answers this question in the affirmative. In Guam, in order to comply 23 wit withh 77 GC GCAA §§6107,
6107, disqua lifica ion must disqualification must be
be ur ged aatt t the
urged he "ea r liest practicable "earliest
24 opportunity." See Van Van Dox v.
v. Superior Ct.,
Ct., 2008 Guam 77 1] 17 (emphasis ,i 17 (emphasis added). The 25 Guam Supreme Supreme Court
Court takes this language language from aa California California case
case and notes that an
26
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
Case Case No. CF0479-24, People People v.
v. Benzfacio
Benifacio Ranuk
Page Page 6 of 14 1 "objection "objection was was waived
waivedwhere
where party
party failed
failed to
to request
request disqualification
disqualification until three months months
2 2 af'er afte_r the the party
party was
was aware of
of the
the disqualgfj/ingfacts..."
disqualifying " Id Id.atat'H, 45
45 citing
citingCam
Caminetti y.
v.
3 Pac. Mai.
Mut. Ins.
Ins. Co. ofCaZ.,
of Cal., 139
139 P.2d
P.2d 930,
930, 933 (Cal.1943) (emphasis (emphasis added).
added). The
The Guam
Guam
4 Supreme Court also Supreme Court also notes notes that
that aa "statement
"statementmay
maybe
be untimely
untimely if
if a party waits until
until the
the
5 eve of oftrial trial totorequest
request disqualification
disqualification based on information information made
made known
known months
months
6 7 earlier." Id Id.atat,
1146
46 citing
citing People
People v.
v. Pariah,
Panah, 107 P.3d 790, 824
824 (Cal.2005)
(Cal.2005) (emphasis
(emphasis
7 added). the case added). In the case before before us,
us,AG
AG Moylan
Moylan knew about the
the allegedly
allegedly disqualifying facts facts
8
9 9 almost two decades decades in advance,
advance, because
becauseAG
AG Moylan's
Moylan's ex-wife
ex-wifeDorris
Dorrisremarried
remarried Judge
Judge
10 Tolentino in in 2005.
2005. Answer to Statement Statementof
of Obj.
Obj. at
at 33 (Aug.
(Aug. 5, 2024).
11 11 Further, AG Moylan Further, AG Moylan himself himself recognized
recognized that
that the "earliest possible opportunity"
opportunity"
12 addressthe to address theallegedly allegedly disqualifying
disqualifying facts
facts was
was almost
almost two
two years
years ago, in
in December
December 2022,
13 13 before taking taking office,
office, because
because that's when then-Attomey then-Attorney Moylan chose to meet meet with
with
14 14 JudgeTolentino Judge Tolentino and andwaive
waive the
theconflict.
conflict. Id.
Id at 2. AG
AG Moylan
Moylandoes
does not
not dispute this, and
dispute this4, and
15 15 16 the meeting took place in front of witnesses, the meeting witnesses, including the Administrator including the Administrator of of Courts.
Courts. Id.
Id
16 17 It is is correct correct that the newly elected Attorney General that the sought to General sought to resolve resolve the
the conflict
conflict in
17
18 18 December December 2022 before taking taking office,
office,because
becausethere
there are
are massive
massive administrative
administrative concerns
concerns
19 19 with disqualifying with disqualifying one one of
ofthe
the Guam
Guam Superior Court's limited limited Judges from every criminal Judges from
20 20 case on the the island,
island, and
andany
anycivil
civil case chargedby
case charged by the
theOAG
OAG as well.
well. This
This is
is why
why the
the Guam
21 Supreme has cautioned Supreme Court has cautioned that thataaJudge
Judgeshould
shouldnot
not"distance
"distance themselves
themselves from cases
cases
22 at the slightest suggestion"
suggestion" because "[a] Judge's because "[a] Judge'sduty dutytotohear
hearaacase
case and
and keep the wheels
23 of ofjustice justice rotating rotating is just as strong as his strong as his or
or her
her duty
dutyto
to remove
remove himself
himself or herself
herself if a
24 25 reasonable personwould reasonable person wouldnot notbelieve
believe in his
his or
or her
her impartiality."
impartiality." Ada v.
v. Guitierrez, 2000
25
26 4 Min. Entry at 9:48:01 AM (Mot. Hearing, Aug. 15, 2024).
4 Min. 9:48:01 AM Hearing, 2024).
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
CaseNo.
No. CF0479-24,
CF0479-24,People
People v.
v. Ben yfaeio Ranuk
Benifacio Ranuk
Page Page 77 of
of14
1 Guam 22 22 at ,r,r 12-13.
at 'W .12-13.With
Withall
allof
ofthis
this in
in mind,
mind, the
the Court
Court will
will nevertheless address the
22 OAG's OAG's timeliness timeliness arguments.
3 AGMoylan's
a. AG Moylan'sWaiver
WaiverStill
StillApplies,
Applies, Even
Even Though
Though the
the OAG
OAG Filed this
4 Case in 2024 The OAG
OAG maintains
maintains that
that they filed
filed their
their Magistrate
Magistrate Complaint for this case in 5
6 August 2024, and that it is therefore therefore timely. People's Resp. to J. Tolentino's Answer to 6
7 Statement Statement of of Obj.
Obj. 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6107
6107 &
& Mot. to Disqualify
Mot. to Disqualify at 3,
3, (Aug.
(Aug. 12,
12, 2024). In a more
8 typical situation, typical situation, the the Guam
Guam Supreme
Supreme Court has
has held that "a statement of of objection is
99 normally timely if if it is submitted prior to to any
any hearing
hearing before
before the
the challenged
challenged judge
judge in the
10 matter." See Van Dox matter." See Dax v.
v. Superior
Superior Ct.,
Ct., 2008
2008 Guam ,r
46 citing Hollingsworth, 236 Guam 7711 46
11 ll Cal.Rptr. at Cal.Rptr. at 195-96 195-96 ((emphasis added). However, emphasis added). However, this this is
is not
not aa "normal"
"normal" situation.
situation. This
Thisis
12 the Attorney General General of Guam. If
If we disqualify
disqualify Judge
Judge Tolentino
Tolentino from
from hearing
hearing cases
cases
13 13 14 related ela t ed to t o AG M oyla we
Moylan, we will
will dis
disqualify u
qu a lify JJudge olent ino from TTolentino om Gu a
Guam's entire
14 15 prosecution mechanism. 15
16 When the Guam Supreme Supreme Court
Court laid
laid out
out the
the normal
normal timeliness
timeliness standard,
standard, stated
17 above, the Could llingsworth, but that California case involves a situation where Court cited Hollingsworth, where
18 18 a Defendant could not possibly predict that the Judge in question would hear the case 19 19 ahead of of time. See Hollingsworth, Hollingsworth, 236 Cal.Rptr. at 197 ("We End Cal.Rptr. at find itit unreasonable, unreasonable, as
20 well as impracticable, to require well as require presentation of of a statement of
of disqualification
disqualification until
until it
it is
is
21 known which judge judge will
will hear
hear the case."). Unlike the Defendant in Hollingsworth, llingsworth, AG
AG
22 Moylan knew that that Judge Tolentino
Tolentino would hear
hear AG
AG Moylan's
Moylan's cases,
cases, because
because Judge
Judge
23
24 Tolentino is a Guam Superior Court Judge Judge and AG Moylan is the Attorney General of of
24
25 Guam.
Guam.
26
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
Case No. CF0479-24, People People v.
v. Benifacio Ranuk
Page 8 of 14 Page 14 11 AG Moylanknew AG Moylan knewwell
wellahead
ahead of
oftime
timethat
that Judge Tolentino
Tolentino would be hearing hearing AG
AG
2 Moylan's cases, Moylan's cases, which which is why AG
AGMoylan
Moylanhimself
himselfasked
asked Judge
Judge Tolentino for
for aa meeting
3 address the to address the countless, countless,potential
potentialconflicts.
conflicts.Answer
Answerto
to Statement
Statementof
ofObj.
Obj. at
at22 (Aug.
(Aug. 5,
4 2024). Typically, Typically, the
the timeliness
timeliness requirement
requirement should be "liberally construed" to promote 5 justice. See See Van Dax v. Superior Co., Dox v. 2008Guam7145 Ct., 2008 Guam 7 1] 45 citing citing Eagle
Eagle Mains.
Maint. & Supple
Supple
6 v. Super.
Co. v. Super. Cr., 16 Cal.Rptr. 745, 747 (Dist.Ct.App.1961). However, Ct., 16 However, again, again, when
when the
the
7
8 Court emphasizes
Guam Supreme Court emphasizes this this liberal
liberal construction,
construction, they cite aa California California case
9 where, "it would place an undue hardship upon a litigant or his counsel to compel him
10 before the to know before the first first scheduled
scheduled trial setting, whatjudge whai}udge would
wouldbe
be assigned
assigned to try his
11 11 case in a particular particular department
department of
of the
the court where the
court where the trial
trial date
date has
has been
been set
set over."
over." Id.
Id
12 12 emphasis added). (emphasis added).
13 13 The Guam SSupreme he Gua upr CCourt's our t 's nor ma l ststandard normal a nda clea r ly aapplies clearly pplies in aa t ypica typicall
14 14 situation, but situation, but the the case
case before
before us
us is
is not typical:
typical: it involves the Attorney General. AG 15 15 Moylan clearly Moylan clearly knew knew "what
"what judge
judge would
would be
beassigned
assigned to
to try
tryhis
his cases,"
cases," because
because the
the
16 16
17 Attorney General represents the People, People, and
and `the People inevitably try cases in front of the People
18 18 Superior Court Judge, every Superior Judge, including includingJudge
JudgeTolentino.
Tolentino.This
Thisisiswhy
whyAG
AG Moylan
Moylan met
met
19 19 with Judge Tolentino back in December December 2022 to specifically address address Judge
Judge Tolentino's
Tolentino's
20 criminal docket, criminal docket, before taking office. Further, before taking Further, AG Moylan Moylan does
does not
notdispute
dispute that
that he
he
21 purposely waived any potential purposely potential conflicts conflicts during
during the
the meeting.
meeting.Min.
Min. Entry
Entry at
at9:48:01
9:48:01AM
AM
22 (Mot. Hearing, (Mot. Hearing, Aug.
Aug. 15,
15, 2024).
2024). This
This waiver
waiverstood
stood for
forover
overaayear
yearand half. 5 The
and aa ha1f.5 The AG
AG
23
24 5 See Answer to Statement of Obj. at 6 (Jul. 29, 2024) citing People v. Balatico, Crim. Case No. CM0188-24; People 5 25 See Answer to Statement (Jul. 29, 2024) citing v. Balatico, Case No. CM0188-24; People v. Rosal, Rosal, Crim. Case Case No. CF0270-24,
CF0270-24, and People v. v. Rik at, Crim. Case Rikat, No. CF0423-24 Case No. CF0423-24 and
and Shane
ShaneTenorio
Tenorio Healy,
Healy,
"Akoma trial: Judge denies admission admission of
of AG
AG evidence",
evidence", Marianas
Marianas Variety,
Variety, November
November 23, 2023,
2023, Akoma trial:
trial: Judge
Judge
26 denies admission admission ofof AG evidence II News AGevidence News I Marianas Variety Variety News & Views (mvariety.com).
lmvarietv.com).
27 Decision Decision and and Order
Case No.No. CF0479-24, PeoplePeople v. v. Benzfacio Benifacio Ranuk
Page Page 9 of of 14 1 cannot rescind the cannot rescind the waiver now.
now. Countless
Countless criminal
criminal cases
cases could
could be
be overturned,
overturned, an
an
2 2 outcome that would not "promote justice."
justice." Van Dex
Dox v.
v. Superior
SuperiorCr.,
Ct.,2008 Guam771]i! 45
2008Guam
3 citing Eagle Eagle Mains.
Maint. & Supple
Supple Co.
Co. v.
v. Super. Ct.,, 16
Super. Cr. 16 Cal.Rptr.
Cal.Rptr. 745,
745, 747
747
4 (Dist.Ct.App.l96l). (Dist.Ct.App.1961 5 b. San
San Augustin
Augustin Does Not
Not Justify OAG's
OAG's Statement
Statement of Objection
6 The OAG
OAG claims
claims that
that the San
San Augustin
Augustin opinion
opinion provides
provides additional
additional grounds
grounds on
7
g which to require disqualification, "namely "namely the
the Supreme
Supreme Court's
Court's explanation
explanation and use
use of
of
8
9 9 its supervisory supervisory authority over the Superior Court of authority over of Guam's Guam's assignment
assignment of matters
matters to
10 10 disqualifiedjudges."
disqualified judges."People's People'sResp.
Resp. to
to J.
J. Tolentino's
Tolentino's Answer
Answer to
to Statement of Obj.
Statement of Obi. 7 GCA
GCA
11 11 §§ 6107 & Mot.
6107 & Mot. to to Disqualify
Disqualify at
at 3 (Aug. 12,
3 (Aug. 12, 2024).
2024). The OAG also
The OAG notes that
also notes filed they filed
that they
12 . . . .
their Statement of Ob]
Objection
ectxonthe
theday
dayafter
afterthe
theGuam
Guam Supreme
Supreme Court Issued San Augustin.
Court issued Augustin.
13 13 However,the Id. However, theGuam GuamSupreme
SupremeCou1"r's
Court's supervisory
supervisory authority
authority was
was not
not invented
invented in
in July
14 14 2024, 2024; it has been in use use for
for decades.
decades.See
See People v.
v. Angoco, 2006 Guam
Guam18 ,r (holding
18129
15 15 16 that the Guam that the Supreme Court's Guam Supreme Court's supervisory supervisory power is intended intended to "address
"address extreme
extreme
16
17 cases, suchas cases, such aswhen whenthe
theSuperior
SuperiorCourt
Couldisisacting
actingininexcess
excessof
of its
its powers.").
Powers."). Further,
Further, in
18 18 San San Augustin, the Guam Supreme Supreme Court
Court addressed
addressed"(
"(1)
1) the
the manner
manner in which judges are
19 19 appointed to review appointed to review the denial denial of
of disqualification
disqualification requests, and(2)
requests, and (2) the
the rights
rights of the
20 20 parties to briefing parties to briefing and andhearing
hearingonce
oncethe
thereview
reviewisisassigned
assignedtotoaareviewing
reviewingjudge
judge..."San
... " San
21 . . . . , 1 . . .
Augustin, ,r 34.
Guam 22 1]
Augusts, 2024 Guam 34.This involves judges Thls involves reviewing dzsqualy'icatzon judges revzewmg disqualification requests, requests,
22 not not the the disqualification itself. As disqualification itself. As such, such, San
San Augustin
Augustin does
does not
not apply
apply to the
the
23 disqualification disqualification issue before us.
24
25
26
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
Case No.
No. CF0479-24, People
People v. Benifacio
ybcio Ranuk
Page 10 o
10 14f 14
1l c. Aguon Aguon is Not Precedent, But Not Binding Precedent, But Even If It Was, It It Establishes
Establishes
Precedent for a Defendant, Not Not the
the OAG
OAG
2 Although San Augustin is not relevant to the case, the same cannot be said for 3 Aguon, g u on , the first instance where first instance where a trial court court disqualified Judge Tolentino because "a 4 5 reasonable person could question whether Judge Tolentino could be impartial in a case 5 6 6 proceeding at proceeding at the directionof the direction of[AG]
[AG] Moylan." People of Guam v.v. Nakita of Guam Nikita T Aguon, Aguon,
77 CM0145-21 -2 1 at 88 (Su per. Ct.
(Super. Ct. Gu a
Guam. Apri
Aprill 55,, 22024).
0 2 4 ). Thi s deci
This not bibinding, s not
si on i is
decision ndi
8 however, as however, as itit was was not
not issued
issued by
by the
the Guam
Guam Supreme
Supreme Court.
Court. Further,
Further, the
the objection in the
objection in
9 9 case arose arose because
becausethe
theDefendant
Defendantfiled
filedaaMotion
Motion for
for Disqualification of Prosecutor Prosecutor (not
10 aa Statement Statement of of Objection under 77 GCA Objection under GCA §§ 6105)
6105) and
and then
then the
the Defendant
Defendant later
later argued
argued
11 11 during ri ng a heari ng on March hearing March 11,, 22024, 0 2 4 , that
that "there
"there had
had been
been an
an uundisclosed
ndi scl osed fami
familial
12 12 relationship between relationship betweenJudge JudgeTolentino
Tolentinoand
andDouglas
DouglasMoylan ... " Id at Moylan..." at 4-5.
4-5. Therefore, the
the
13 13 holding in Aguon does not apply apply to
to objections
objections by
by the
the OAG, objections OAG, but instead to obi actions by by
14 14
15 15 a Defendant. Even Even if Aguon
g precedent, AG Moylan cannot make the was binding precedent, the
16 16 preposterous claim preposterous claim that there there has
has been an "undisclosed familial relationship" between
17 Judge Tolentino Judge Toléntino and and himself.
himself. AG
AG Moylan
Moylan has
has known
known about
about this
this relationship
relationship for twenty
for twenty
18 18 years and, unlike years and, unlike the the Defendant
Defendant in
in Aguon, AG Moylan waived AG Moylan waivedthe
the relationship
relationship in
in
19 19 December 2022.
2022.
20 d. AG
AGMoylan's
Moylan'sWaiver
WaiverisisofofParticular
Particular Concern,
Concern, Given
Given that the OAG
OAG
21 May May be
be Attempting
Attempting to Manipulate
Manipulate the Criminal
Criminal Justice System
Finally, the fact that AG Moylan waived waived the
the conflict
conflict and
and then seems to have
22 23 23 rescinded that waiver is of particular concern, concern, because
because the
the Guam
Guam Supreme Court makes
24 it clear it that 77 GCA clear that GCA §§ 6105 6105 "is
"is not
not intended to 'bestow
intended to veto power 'bestow veto judges or over judges
power Over or to
to be
be
25 25 used as aajudge judgeshopping
shoppingdevice.'"
device."' San Agustin v.
v. Superior Court
Court of Guam, 2024 Guam
ofGuam,
26 ,-i 24 2 1] 24 (quoting (quoting People
People v.
v. Camaddu,
Camaddu, 2015
2015 Guam 2 1] ,-i 80
80 (quoting
(quoting Nichols
Nichols v.
v. Alley, 71
71
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
Case No. CF0479-24, People People v.
v. Beny'acio
Benifacio Ranuk
Ranuk
Page Page 11 of14
of14
1 F.3d 347, 351 351 (10"*
th
Cir. 1995) (per Cir. (per curiam);
curium), cf
cf Ada,
Ada, 2000 Guam 22,r121 ("We Guam22 ("We do not
2 2 want to open a Pandora's Pandora's box in which parties begin drawing a judge's judge's family tree each
3 time it seems that a judge judge will mle
rule against
against therm."). AG Moylan them."). AG Moylan did not question his own 4 Tolentino, until
waiver with Judge Tolentino, until a year-and-a-half into into AG
AG Moylan's tenure,
tenure, when
5 Judge Tolentino issued a major decision decision with
with which
which AG Moylan seriously disagreed.
6 In that case, in the first decision to ever address a Statement of Objection by the 7
8 OAG regarding AG Moylan's Moylan's relationship
relationship with
with Judge
Judge Tolentino,
Tolentino, the
the Honorable
Honorable Maria
9 T. Cenzon notes that the timing timing of the OAG's Objection Objection is
is "suspect
"suspect because it comes on
10 10 the heels of Judge Tolentino's Decision Decision and
and Order
Order issued
issued on
on April
April 25,
25, 2024,
2024, granting
11 11 Defendant Sablan's Motion Defendant Sablan's Motion to to Disqualify the Office
Disqualify the Office of the the Attorney
Attorney General
General and
and
12 12 mandating mandating that a special special prosecutor
prosecutor be appointed."
appointed." People of
of Guam
Guam v.
v. Richard
Richard K
Y
13 13 Yabnez, et. al, Yabnez, et. al, CF0447-23 at 21 (Super. Ct. Guam. June 12, 2024).
2024). Since then, and only 14 14 a few weeks after filing the Statement of Objection in this case, AG Moylan published 15 15 an op-ed op-ed in Pacific Pacu'ic Daily News, confirming that News, confirming that he he seeks
seeks to overturn
overturn his own
own
16 16
17 disqualification by Judge disqualification by Judge Tolentino Tolentino in the very case noted by the Honorable Maria T.
17
18 18 Cenzon:
19 We are concerned concerned that the Guam trial courts are engaging in Judicial Activism Activism
and re-writing Guam law that expressly re-writing Guam expressly requires requires that the Guam
Guam Attorney
Attorney
20 General be the public prosecutor and to provide legal services to government officials who are only stewards stewards of
of the People, and are
are not the People of Guam, 21 by using "ethics rules" to disqualify this elected AG.
22 I believe
believe itit is
is wrong
wrong and
and we will seek
we will seek to have itit corrected either either in this court or
6
23 higher highercourts.
courts.6
24
25 6 6 Attorney General Attorney General Douglas Douglas Moylan,
Moylan, "LETTER:
"LETTER:Court
Courtdecision
decisioninterferes
interfereswith
with elected
elected AG's
AG's ability
ability to
to fight
corruption", corruption", PacIfic News, June 2, 2024, Pacific Daily News, 2024, LETTER: Courtdecision LETTER: Court decisioninterferes interfereswith
with elected
elected AG's
AG's ability
ability to
to fight
fight
26 corruption IIOpinion Opinion II guampdn.com.
guampdn.com.
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
Case Case No. CF0479-24, People v.
CF0479-24, People v. Benifacio Benifacio Ranuk
Ranuk
Page 12 of 1414
The Court cannot discern if AG Moylan started disqualifying Judge Tolentino, because, 2 as AG Moylan as Moylan writes, writes, he is
is "concerned
"concerned that
that the
the Guam
Guam trial
trial courts
courts are
are engaging
engaging in
in Judicial
Judicial
3
4 wishes to Activism" and he wishes to rind find aa better
better outcome
outcome with
with different
different Judge.
Judge. These
These circumstances
circumstances
4
5 Moylan's sudden
surrounding AG Moylan's suddenobjection objectionagainst
against Judge
Judge Tolentino,
Tolentino, after
after aa year-and-a-half
year-and-a-half of
of
66 objecting, inform not objecting, inform our decision about the waiver, because because the
the Court should seek to avoid
7 "outcomes which lead to "outcomes to the the manipulation
manipulation of
of the
the criminal
criminal justice
justice system."
system." See People
People v.
8 Camaddu, ,r 80 (stating that if a trial Guam2211
Camaddu, 2015 Guam trial court court recused
refused itself "every
"every time it receives
99 unsolicited material uncomplimentary uncomplimentaryto
to aa defendant
defendantprior
prior to
to trial
trial or sentencing [it] would create 10 10 . . _ . . . . . _ . ,, an intolerable situation sltuatlonwhich
whlch could
could lead
leadto
to aamanipulation
mampulatlonofof the
thecriminal
cnmlnaljustice
justicesystem.").
system. ). For
11 reason, and
this reason, and all all of
of the
the reasons
reasons above,
above, the
the OAG's
OAG's waiver
waiver should
should be
be treated
treated as
as aa failure to file
12 12 at the "earliest at the "earliest practicable practicable opportunity"
opportunity" Linder
under 77 GCA
GCA §§ 6107.
6107.
13 13 B. Does Does Judge
Judge Tolentino
Tolentino Have
Have aa Disqualifying
Disqualifying Relationship Relationship that Creates Creates the
14 14 of Bias' Under 7 GCA 6105?
'Appearance of
15 15 The Court declines to answer this question definitively. Given the waiver under
16 16 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107, 6107, it is not
it is necessary for
not necessary for the
the Court
Court to
to reach
reach the
the alleged
alleged bias
bias under
under 7
7 GCA
GCA
17 6105, because 6105, because the objection is the objection is procedurally procedurally defective.
defective. However,
However, given recent given the recent
18 18 revelations in Aguon, Defendants are not precluded precluded from
from raising their objections. Only 19 19 the OAG is precluded.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Decision Decision and
and Order
Case No. CF0479-24, People v. Benifacio Ranuk Page Page 13 of14
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION AND
AND ORDER
2 For the
the above
above reasons,
reasons, the
the Court
Court DENIES the
the OAG's
OAG's Statement
Statement of
of Objection
Objection and
and
3 4 declines to disqualify the Honorable Honorable Alberto E.
E. Tolentino.
Tolentino. The
TheCourt
Courtreturns
returns this
this case to the
the
4 5 Honorable Alberto E.
Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino.
5
6
7 so SO ORDERED,
ORDERED, this
q ti
this -~l__ day of
A {
2? 2 *"'
day of_/J_4-+-t<tJ~---- 2024.
2024. A/
8
9
10 HC RABL JOHN c. TERLAJE 11 Judge,Sup@ or Court of Guam 12 12
13 13
14 14 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL aclmowledge that I acknowledge that an original_),Vas original as ~ailed
ailed to:
to'
15 15 HK.
/In, I58%
i'PfC
Date$74 ' e7-'U 1 16 Date~~e1 1~ H/I<~.GI~ - 1 J Z kA A Depufy Ger Deput Oerk,m,Superior
uperi CourtRfolGuam
Guam
17
18 18
19 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Decision e c i s o n and Order
Case No.
N CF0479-24,
C People
l e vv. Benifacio
z f a c i o Ranuk
Ra
Page 14 of 14