FIL 'I L Et~ 9 _ CLERK OF COURT 2
3 202\ AUG 20z1: AUG2929PH PHIt:L:25
25
4 SUPE.B!OR SUPERIOR COURT .
oF GUAM OFGUAM~ , 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF OF GUAM, GUAM, CRHVIINAL no. CF0391-24 CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0391-24 9 vs.
10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 11 ZHAODI ZHAODICHEN CHENROMOLOR ROMOLORaka akaEmma Emma aka aka 12 12 Zhaodi Chen, 13 Defendant.
14 14
15 15 INTRODUCTION
16 16 is before This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez for for the the limited limitedpurpose purpose of ofaddressing addressing
17 17 the People of the People of Guam's Guam's ("the Government") Statement ("the Government") Statement of of Objection Objection 7 7 GCA GCA §§6107 6107 and Motion to and Motion to
18 18 Disqualify Disqualify filed filed July July 23, 23, 2024.
19 19 BACKGROUND
20 20 On July July l,1,2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant Zhaodi Zhaodi Chen Chen Romolor Romolor aka aka Emma Emma aka aka Zhaodi Zhaodi Chen Chen
21 ("Defendant") ("Defendant")was was indicted indicted with following charges:
with the following (1) Aggregated charges: (1) Aggregated Retail Theft Theft (As (As aa Second
22 Degree Felony); (2) Retail Retail Theft Theft (As (Asaa Third Third Degree Degree Felony);
Felony); and and (3) Attempted Retail Retail Theft Theft (As (As
23 a Misdemeanor). (Indictment, (Indictment, Jul.
Jul. 1, 1, 2024).
24 On On July July 17, 2024, at 17, 2024, atArraignment, Arraignment, Defendant Defendant entered entered aaplea pleaof of not not guilty guilty and waived waived her
25 right to a speedy trial.
speedy trial.
26 On July July 18, 18, 2024, 2024,this thismatter matterwas wasassigned assignedtotoJudge Judge AlbertoE.E.Tolentino.
Alberto Tolentino.See SeeNotice Notice of of
27 27 Judge Assignment, Jul Judge Jul 18, 18, 2024.
2024.
28
People v. Romo/or Romolor Case No. CF0391 CF0391-24 Decision Decision and and Order
1 off Page 1 of8
I On On July 23, 2024, July 23, 2024, the the Government Governmentfiled tiled aa Statement Statementof of Objection Objection 77 GCA GCA §§ 6107 6107 and and 2 Motion Motion to Disqualify Disqualify ("Objection"), ("Objection"), moving moving for forJudge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's recusal recusal in this this matter.
matter. The
3 Government moves for Government moves for Judge Tolentino's recusal Judge Tolentino's pursuantoto77G.C.A.
recusal pursuant G.C.A. §§ 6105(a)
6l05(a) because of because of 4 Judge Tolentino's Judge Tolentino's familial familial relationship with Attorney relationship with Attorney General Douglas B.
General Douglas Molyan. 1 B. Molyan.l See
5 generally, generally, Objection, Objection, Jul.
Jul. 23, 2024.
6 On July July 29, 29,2024, 2024,Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentinofiled filedhis hisAnswer Answerto to Statement Statementof ofObjection, Objection, challenging challenging
7 the the timeliness timeliness of the the objection objection and and denying that that his recusal recusal is appropriate in this appropriate in this matter.
matter. See
8 generally, Answer, Jul.
generally, Answer, Jul. 29, 2024.
9 On On July 30, 2024, July 30, 2024, pursuant pursuantoto77G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6107, 6107, the the question questionof of whether whether Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentino
10 10 should be disqualified from from continuing continuing to preside preside over over this this mater mater came before before this this recusal recusal court.
11 11 See Notice Notice of ofAssignment AssignmentofofRecusal RecusalJudge, Judge,Jul.
Jul. 30, 30, 2024.
2024.
12 12 Subsequently, on August August 12, 12, 2024, 2024,the theGovernment Governmentfiled filed aaResponse Responseto toJudge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's
13 13 Answer to Answer to Statement of Objection Statement of Objection 77 GCA GCA §6107 §6107 and Motion to and Motion to Disqualify.
Disqualify.
14 14 DISCUSSION
15 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 16 16 be disqualified. Where Whereaajudge judgefails failsto todisqualify disqualifyhim himor orherself, herself,any anyparty party to to that that proceeding may 17 17 move move to to disqualify disqualify the the judge judge pursuant to 77 G.C.A.
pursuant to G.C.A. §§ 6107.
6107.
18 18 A. Statement Statement of of Objection 19 19 The Government moves to disqualify Government moves disqualify Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino in in this this matter matter based based on the the 20 20 following following grounds:
grounds:
21 • • That from 2014 2014 to to 2022, 2022, Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino disqualified disqualified himself himself from from cases cases involving involving Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan as as aa private private attorney attorney on on the the basis of the the 22 22 familial relationship relationship that that exists between between them, them;
23 23 • • That Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino stated stated that that disqualification disqualification was was necessary necessary because because 24 24 Attorney General Attorney General Moylan Moylan is is the the father father of ofhis his step-children, step-children;
25
26 26 I1 Attached to the Government's Statementof Government's Statement ofObjection Objectionare are several several exhibits, exhibits, including aa Decision and Order Order issued 27 Judge Iriarte by Judge Iriarte on June 4, 2024 in People v. Taitingbng, Criminal Case No.
v. Taitingfong, No. CF0024-24, CF0024-24, andand several several Form Form One One --
Disqualification 77 GCA Disqualification GCA §§ 6106 6106 memorandums memorandums issued issued by byJudge JudgeTolentino Tolentinorecursing himself from recusing himself from cases cases involving involving 28 Attorney General Moylan Moylan when when he he was was in in private practice based on section 6105(a) up until 6l05(a) up until October October 27, 2022.
People People v. Romo/or Romolor Case No.
No. CF0391-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 2 of8 of
1
• • That Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's last Form One-Disqualification One-Disqualification in in this regard was was filed on October 27, 2022;
2022, 2 • • That the basis basis for for Judge Judge Tolentino's prior disqualifications Tolentino's prior disqualifications hasn't.changed, hasn'tchanged;
3 • That aa reasonable reasonable person person would would presume presume that that Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's personal personal 4 relationship with relationship with Attorney Attorney General General Moylan andand his prior years years disqualifying 5 himself from any himself any matters matters involving AG Moylan involving AG Moylan would wouldraise raise aareasonable reasonable question about his his impartiality and necessitate necessitate his his disqualification;
disqualification, 6 • • That Judge Judge Tolentino has been disqualified Tolentino has disqualified from presiding presiding over over other other cases cases 7 based on the the above facts, facts; and 8 • • That San Agustin v. v. Superior Ct.
Ct. of Guam, 2024 Guam 2, required the Clerk of Guam, 9 Court to rrefrain of Cour in from om aassigning ssigning cases ses to Judge Tolentino to Judge olentino once once he wa was disqualified.
10 10 Objection, Jul. 23, 2024.
See Objection, 11 11 In his answer, Judge Tolentino sets forth under penalty of perjury the the following relevant 12 12 facts:: facts 13 13
6. That at at Mr.
Mr. Moylan's Moylan's request, request, aa meeting meeting between him and the undersigned, the 14 14 undersigned's chamber staff, the Administrator of the Courts, chamber staff, Courts, and and Mr.
Mr. Moylan's 15 transition chairperson, Mr. Wilfred Aflague, occurred occurred in in December December2022 2022;, 16 16 7. That at tthis his meeting, ing, Mr.. Moylann assured s ur ed me me and the ot other member members in m attendance that he perceived no conflict in his election as the Attorney General and he perceived 17 17 prosecution of criminal the prosecution criminal cases cases before before the the undersigned.
undersigned. It It was was agreed agreed that that the 18 18 circumstances underlying my my recusal recusal in in matters that Mr. Moylan was a lawyer no 19 19 longer existed, to wit: that during my term as longer as the Magistrate Judge and as a Judge I had routinely routinely recused myselffrom reused myself fromall allmatters matters where where Mr.
Mr. Moylan Moylan waswas the attorney 20 20 of a party of party before before me me on the basis that he was the father of of my my minor step-children 21 and that the the minor step-children were members of and resided in the household step-children were maintained by me and my my wife wife and and that that as as ofof even even date, date, both both step-children step-children have 22 now reached reached majority majority and adulthood adulthood and have beenbeen residing at their own own residences 23 23 in Guam and in the U.S. Mainland;
Mainland,
24 24 ThatMr.
8. That Mr.Moylan Moylannever nevermade madean anappearance appearanceas as aa lawyer lawyer in in this this case.
25 25 9. That neither neither Mr.. Moylan Moylan nor the Office Office ofof the the Attor Attorney Gener General had ever ever challenged challenged or or objected objected to to me me presiding presiding over over this this case case until the instant Statement of 26 26 Objection and Motion to Disqualify filed herein.
27 27
* * *
***
28
People People v. Romolor Case No.
No. CF0391-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 3 of8 of 14. That my wife 14. That wife Doris Doris L.G.
L.G. Tolentino Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney General General Moylan Moylan were were 1 divorced on on June June 13, 13, 1997, andthat 1997, and thatthere therewere weretwo two minor minor children children at atthe the time time of of 2 the marriage, to wit: Brandon (born 1990)
the dissolution of marriage, andAngela 1990) and Angela (born 1992);
3 15.
15. That my wife and and I have have been been together together since 2001 2001 and andthat thatwe wewere weremarried named 4 civilly civillyinin2005 2005 and and eventually eventuallyin inthe theRoman RomanCatholic CatholicChurch Churchin inDecember December2023 2023;, 16. have five children 16. That we have children inclusive of ofBrandon and Angela;
Brandon and Angela, 5
17. since my 17. That since my wife wife and I have have been beentogether togetherII have havenever neverobserved observedMr.Mr. Moylan Moylan 6 and my my wife wife involved involvedin inany anysense sense in in co-parenting co-parenting the the children children of oftheir their marriage marriage asas 7 the children have been raised and provided provided with with protection protection and and care to ensure ensure their 8 healthy development into healthy development into adulthood, primarilyby adulthood, primarily by my my wife and and me, me, and and that that atat present they are present they in fact are in fact adults adults able able to to conduct conductand andmake maketheir theirown owndecisions decisionsininlife;
life, 9 18. 18. That based based upon thethe foregoing foregoing averments, averments, the the fact fact that that Attorney Attorney General General 10 Moylan Moylan is is the the biological biologicalfather fatherof ofthe theundersigned's undersigned'sstepchildren stepchildren provides provides no no basis basis 11 for for disqualification disqualification under under 77 GCA GCA §§6105(b)
6105(b) or orthat that the undersigned's impartiality the undersigned's impartiality might be reasonably questioned as required under under subsection subsection(a).(a).
12 12 (Answer (Answerat at 3-4, 3-4, Jul.
Jul. 29, 2024).
13 13
In In response, the Government asserts response, the thatits asserts that its Statement Statementof of Objection Objection was timely timely and and that that 14 Judge Tolentino is Judge Tolentino is disqualified disqualified "per "per se."
se." See See generally, Resp., Aug.
Aug. 12, 12, 2024.
2024.
15 15
B. Timeliness Timeliness of of Objection 16 16 The first issue issue before the whetherthe the Court is whether theGovernment's Government's Objection Objectionwas wastimely timely filed, filed, 17 as JudgeTolentino as Judge Tolentino challenges challengesthe thetimeliness timelinessof ofthe theGovernment's Government'sObjection.
Objection. (Answer (Answer at at 'W ,i,i 9-
18 18 13). 13). The TheGovernment Governmentargues arguesits itsobjection objectionisis timely timelybecause because theSan San Agustin opinion opinion issued issued July 19 19 18, "provided additional 18, 2024 "provided additional grounds grounds on which to require disqualification, disqualification, namely namely the the Supreme Supreme 20 Court's explanation and use explanation and use of its its supervisory supervisory authority over the authority over the Superior Court of Guam's Superior Court Guam's 21 assignment of matters assignment of mattersto to disqualified disqualifiedjudges"
judges" and and that thatitit filed filed the the "Statement "Statement of of Objection Objection less less 22 than two two weeks after the case was initiated and and before before any any hearing hearing on on any any issue issueof of fact fact was was ever ever 23 set to to be be heard heardby byJudge JudgeTolentino."
Tolentino." (Resp. at 3).
24 Pursuant to section Pursuant to section 6107:
l07:
25 25 The statement of a party objecting to statement of to the the Justice Justice or Judge the ground Judge on the ground of of his or 26 26 her disqualification shall shall be be presented presented at the earliest practicable opportunity after 27 his or her her appearance and discovery appearance and discovery of the facts facts constituting the ground constituting the ground of the or Judge's Justice's or ]edge's disqualification, disqualification,and and inin any any event event before before the the commencement of of 28
People v. Romolor v. Romo/or Case No. CF0391-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 4 of8 of 8 the hearing of the hearing of any issue of fact fact in in the the action action or or proceeding proceeding before beforesuch such Justice Justice or 1 Judge. Judge.
2 2 7 G.C.A.
7 G.C.A. §§6107.
6107. "The "Therule rulethat thata arequest fordisqualification requestfor disqualificationshould shouldbe besubmitted submitted prior prior to to any any 3 hearing in before the challenged in the matter before challenged judge judge rests rests on on the principle principle that a party party may may not not gamble gamble 4 on a favorable decision. Thus, Thus, aa statement of objection statement of objection is normally timely ififititis is submitted submitted prior 5 to any any hearing hearing before the challenged judge in in the the matter."
matter." Van Van Dox Dax v.
v. Superior Superior Cr.
Ct. of ofGuam, Guam, 6 2008 Guam 7 ,r 2008 Guam 1146 46(internal (internalquotation quotationmarks marksand and citation citation omitted)."[A]
omitted). "[A] statement may be statement may 7 untimely untimely if aa party party waits waits until until the the eve eve of oftrial trialtotorequest request disqualification disqualification based based on on information information 8 made knownmonths made known monthsearlier."
earlier."Id Id (citing People People v.
v. Pariah, Panah, 107 790, 824 107 P.3d 790, 824(Cal.
(Cal. 2005)).
9 Here, the Government's Statement of Objection was filed Statement of filed prior prior to to the the commencement of of 10 the hearing hearing of of any any issue issueof of fact in the the action action or or proceeding proceedingbefore before Judge JudgeTolentino.
Tolentino. The The case case was 11 11 assigned to Judge Tolentino on Judge Tolentino on July July 18, 18, 2024, and the 2024, and theGovernment's Government's Statement Statementof of Objection Objection was 12 filed filed five fivedays dayslater lateron onJuly July 23, 23, 2024.
2024. According Accordingtotothe theCourt's Court'scase casemanagement management system, system, at at the 13 13 time of offiling filingofof the theObj section, no Objection, no hearings hearings had or heard had been calendared or heardbefore before Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentino 14 14 in in the instant matter. However, instant matter. However, the the Court Court does does not not find findthat that the the timeliness timeliness analysis analysis ends ends there.
there.
15 15 The facts facts that that form the the basis basis of the the Statement of Objection are Statement of are not newly discovered discovered to the the 16 16 Government and Judge JudgeTolentino Tolentino has has presided presided over over criminal criminal matters matters involving involving the the Government Government 17 17 since Attorney General General Moylan Moylan took office office in in January 2023. See January 2023. Answer ,r114 See Answer ("I ...
4 ("I ... have have been been a 18 18 Judge Judge of the Superior Court of of Guam Guam since since September September 2021, and that thatmy my docket docket consists consists mostly mostly 19 of ofcriminal criminal matters by the matters brought by thePeople People of of Guam through throughthe theOffice Office of of the the Attorney Attorney General.").
20 It was not until until over over a year later in May 2024 that that the theGovernment Governmentfirst firstmoved moved to to disqualify Judge Judge 21 Tolentino. See People v.
See People v. Ybanez, Ybanez, et al. (CF0447-23)
(CF0447-23)Dec.
Dec.&&Order Orderatat5,5,Jun.
Jun. 12, 12, 2024 (noting the 22 Statement of Objection Statement of Objectionand andMotion Motionto toDisqualify Disqualify was wasfiled filed on on May May 1, 2024).
2024). The The Government Government 23 23 has since moved to disqualify has since disqualify Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino in in aa number number of ofcriminal criminal cases,2 but not cases,2 but not all all of his his 24 24
25 2 This This Court, Court, for for example, example, has has been assigned asas recusaljudge recusal judgefor for the the instant instant matter matter (CF0391-24), (CF0391-24),People People v. Buchun, Buchun, (CF0458-24), (CF0458-24), People v. Rikat at (CM0193-24), (CM0193-24), People v. v. Ada (CF0520-24), People v. Timothy Timothy (CM0229-24), and and 26 People v. Quichocho (CM0249-24).
(CM0249-24). The TheStatement StatementofofObjection Objectionfiled filedinineach eachcase case isis substantially substantially the the same.
same. Judge Judge Tolentino's Tolentino's Answer Answer also also refers to objections being being filed filed in People People v. Mantanona (CM0203-24), (CM0203-24); People People v.v.Babauta Babita 27 (CF0443-24), (CF0443-24); People v. Runlet (CM0322-22); People En/et (CM0322-22); People v.v. Sanres Sarges(CF0461-24);
(CF046l-24), People People v. Rabago Rabago (CF0423-24); and 28 People v.
v. Alipich Alipich (CF0449-24). (Answer ,r (Answer1124).
People People v. Romo/or Romolor Case No.
No. CF0391-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 5 of8 of 1 criminal docket. 3 Therefore, criminal docket.3 Therefore,while whilethe thetimeliness timelinessofofan anobi sectionwould objection would normally normally be case specific,
2 the circumstances of of the objections being being filed filed in in some some but but not not all all cases cases before Judge Judge Tolerftino, Tolentino, 3 despite the basis of all all objections objections being substantially the same, require the the Court to to view view them them in
4 light light of of his entire criminal docket, as all criminal matters are brought brought by the the Office of the the Attorney Attorney
5 General on General on behalf of the behalf of People of the People of Guam.
Guam. "7 "7 GCA GCA §§ 6105 is not 6105 is not intended intended to to 'bestow 'bestow veto veto power power
6 over judges or to to be be used used as as aa judge judge shopping shopping device."'
device."' San Agustin, 2024 Guam Guam 2, ,r 24 (citing 2, 1124 77 People v. ,r 80). The Camaddu, 2015 Guam 21180). v. Camaddu, The Court Court further further notes that while San Agustin was not 8 issued until July 18, 2024, 2024, the the Supreme Supreme Court of of Guam's "explanation and use of Guam's "explanation of its supervisory 9 authority over authority over the the Superior Court Court of assignment of of Guam's assignment of matters matters to disqualified disqualified judges," as 10 Government, see relied on by the Government, Resp. at see Resp. at 3, 3, was specifically specifically in regard to the Superior Court's 11 assignment of assignment of judicial judicial recusal ,r 20 (Once matters. 4 See San Agustin, 2024 Guam 22 1120 recusal matters.4 (Once disqualified,
12 12 a judge can take no aaction-even whena cting ction-even when actinginina alimited limitedcacapacity pa city a as s a ar ecusa recusal judge.").
l judge.
13 13 Therefore, the the Government cannot rely on the the opinion opinion recently recently being being published published as as aa basis basis for a 14 14 timeliness argument. 15 15 "Guam law law does does not not speak speak explicitly explicitly of of waiver, waiver, but but does require that 'all parties agree.'
16 16 Rather than interpreting 'agree'
'agree' to to mean mean that that the the parties must expressly agree to to waive the judge's judge's
17 17 disqualification, we held disqualification, we held that remaining remaining silent constitutes constitutes waiver, waiver, at at least least in in the the context context of 7
18 18 G.C.A. §§ 6105(a), G.C.A. 'to avoid 6l05(a), 'to avoid the the possibility possibility of ofparties parties lying lying in in wait, wait, raising raising the the recusal issue only recusal issue only
19 19 after learning learning the the court's court's ruling ruling on on the the merits."' People v.
v. Win, Wia, 2020 Guam Guam 17 ,r (internal 17 1128 (internal 20 20 alterations and citations alterations and In the omitted). In citations omitted). the context context of of 77 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 6105(b), the Supreme 6105(b), the Supreme Court Court of of 21 Guam adopted the "silence-as-wavier"
"silence-as-wavier" rule on a case-by-case basis. ,r 30.
basis. Id. atat 'll 30. The "silence-as-
22 22 waiver" includes failure to object based on information previously known known to to the parties parties through 23 23 separate ,r 27 (finding litigation. Id. atat1127 separate litigation. (finding that the silence-as-waiver rule rule rendered rendered the the defendant's
24
25 3 Judge Judge Tolentino asserts asserts in 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 appearance of of partiality then 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 26 26 criminal docket of pendingand offending andpost-adjudication post-adjudication further further proceedings." (Answer, proceedings." (Answer 1134).
27 4 The The Supreme Supreme Court exercised its "supervisory authority to to clarify clarifythe theproper properprocedures procedures (1)
(1) when when aa party party seeks seeks recusaljudge to challenge a recusal judge for for cause, cause,(2)
(2)for for service serviceof of aawrit writ petition, petition, and (3)
(3) for service of a statement statement of of objection objection 28 on a judge judge or or justice."
justice." San Agustin, 2024 2024 Guam Guam 22, 1154.
54.
I
People v.
v. Romolor Case No. CF0391-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 6 of8 of 1 objection waived and untimely untimely because because the defendant aware of of the disqualification issue through 2 his counsel's counsel's involvement involvement in in other other criminal cases).
3 The Government does not dispute in its Response (nor (nor does it appear appear to address at all)
4 Judge Tolentino's statement statement that he and Attorney General Moylan met in in December December 2022 with
5 court administration and staff staff whereby "[i]t "[i]t was agreed that the circumstances underlying [Judge
6 recusal in Tolentino's] recusal in matters matters that that Mr. Moylan Moylan was was aa lawyer lawyer no no longer longer existed."
existed." (Answer ,r 7).
(Answer'H 7 Moylan appears Thus, Attorney General Moylan appears to have waived any conflict conflict on behalf behalf of the Government
8 prior to the start of his term in in January January 2023.
2023. At Atthis thistime, time,the theCourt Courtisisunaware unawareofofany anyobi section objection
9 set forth by the Government Government to Judge Tolentino matter prior to People Tolentino presiding over any criminal matter
10 10 Ybanez, CF0447-23, on May 1, v. Ybanez, 2024. 5 The Government therefore did not move to disqualify 1, 2024.5
11 11 Judge Tolentino in any criminal matter matter for sixteen months after Attorney General Moylan took 12 12 office (January 2023 2023 to April 2024).
2024). The The Government Government has has .not presented any newly discovered
13 13 facts or change in circumstances relating to the familial familial relationship between Judge Tolentino and
14 14 Attorney General Moylan that would render Attorney General Moylan's Moylan's December December 2022 waiver
15 15 of any conflict moot. The The Court Court notes notes that that the the issue issue of of Judge Tolentino's competency competency was first 16 16 addressed in People v. Aguon, Aguon, CM0145-21 CM0145-21 in Spring 2024, 2024; yet it was through a motion filed by
17 17 the defendant, defendant, not the Government, and in the context of of a Motion to Disqualify the the Prosecutor Prosecutor 18 18 and not a ruling on a Statement Statement of of Objection Objection to to Judge JudgeTolentino's Tolentino's competency. See See Dec. & Order 19 at 4-5, People v.
v. Aguon (CMOl45-21), Apr. 5, 2024 ("On March 1, (CM0145-21), Apr. 1, 2024, the Court heard new
20 arguments Prosecutor. There, arguments on the Motion to Withdraw the Prosecutor. There, in addition to the issue of AAG 21 Olan's Olan's alleged alleged statements, statements, Defendant Defendant asserted asserted there had been an undisclosed familial relationship 22 22 Judge Tolentino between Judge and Douglas Tolentino and DouglasMoylan Moylan ...
...").
"). At Atthe thetime timeof ofthat that Decision Decision and and Order Order in 23 23 CMOl45-21, Judge Tolentino CM0145-21, Judge Tolentino had had already already recused reused himself himselffrom from the the matter, matter, albeit albeit on on different different 24 24
25 5 The Government Government has has not not shown shown that that itit has objected objected to Judge Tolentino presiding overover any criminal criminal matter matter prior to 26 People v. Ybanez.
Ybanez. The Court Court acknowledges acknowledges that that on on May May 24, 24, 2024 2024 (twenty-three (twenty-three days days after after the filing of of an objection Ybanez), the in Ybanez), the Government Government orally orally agreed with Defendant Taitingfong Taitingfong in CF0024-24 that Judge TolentinoTolentino was 27 disqualified from presiding over her case in light of the familial familial relationship relationship between between Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney General Moylan. See People v. v. Taitingfong Taitingong (CF0024-24) Dec. 8: & Order at 44 fn.
fn. 1, l, Jun. 4, 4, 2024.
2024. ItIt does does not not appear 28 that the Government Government itself itself also filed an Objection to Judge Tolentino Tolentino presiding in that matter. See id presiding in
People v. Romo/or Romolor Case No. CF0391-24 CF0391-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 77 of8 off 1 grounds. See See id id.atat2.2.InInlight lightofofthe theforegoing, foregoing,the the Court Court finds finds that that the Government's silence for 2 over a year, despite being aware of the the facts facts forming fanning the basis of of the disqualification, amounts amounts to 3 a waiver of of any any objection objection to to Judge Judge Tolentino presiding over cases cases involving the Office of the 4 Attorney General based Attorney General based on the the familial familial relationship relationship between between Judge Judge Tolentino Tolentino and and Attorney Attorney 5 General Moylan. 6 CONCLUSION
7 For the foregoing reasons, reasons, the Court hereby DENIES DENIES the Government's Statement Statement of of 8 Objection and Motion to Disqualify. The TheCourt Courtreturns returns the the matter matter to to Judge Tolentino for further 9 disposition. 10
11 1 IT IS SO ORDERED this ORDERED this :r/2iayof August, 2024.
day of
12 12
13 13 !
14 14 HONORABLE VERNON P. p. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18 SERVICE VIA SERVICE VIA E-MAIL E-MAIL II acknowledge acknowledge that an 19 19 orig_inal 01 was emailed inal was emailed to:
to:
11G, yn,.U\ 6' I Ym PP 20 D;;,;;,~g;m;
; wf»~ Date:f.~t/Cime~ 21 A _y,.rcJ.t, r--- Depufyt Ge Oerk, m,Superior uperi C CourttRofGu Guam 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
People People v. Rornolor Romo/or Case No.
No. CF0391-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 8 of of8