\¥l.l in .1 p-u I 41.*d
ft
L F
141-
l £ z"'?§ ;'"
w!=a¢.¥ L+
2 2% P=$f3'§ _L; »s 2= 39 3 .-.21 -:8.<=-
; 1 1
4 nm ' . ¢'5»
.*-.§ LE 'Q 1 ;*. 2_ t .1 ¢> f'
M* g
"'§
5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF GUAM
7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0343-24 9 vs.
10 DECISION AND ORDER l11I UNGIIL FLORENCIA FLORENCIA UNGHYSIKEBERT BNGIC'SIKEBERT aka
12 Florencia Ungil Until Sikebert
Sikebert aka Flo,
13 Defendant.
14
15 15 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon Vernon P.
P. Perez
Perez on October 17, 2025, for hearing
17 17 on Defendant Defendant FLORENCIA
FLORENCIA UNGIL
UNGIL SIKEBERT aka Florencia Until Sikebert Florencia Ungil Sikebert aka aka Flo's
Flo's
18 18 ("Defendant") ("Defendant") Motion Motion to
to Suppress.
Suppress. Present
Presentwere
wereAssistant
AssistantAttorney
AttorneyGeneral
GeneralChristopher
Cristopher Grey on
19 19 behalf behalf of of the People of Guam ("the Government") and and Defendant with counsel, Assistant Public
20 20 Defender Mary Hill. Having Havingreviewed
reviewedthe
thepleadings,
pleadings,the
thearguments
arguments presented,
presented, and
and the
the record,
record,
21 the Court now issues the following Decision Decision and
and Order.
Order.
22 BACKGROUND
23 23 On June 7,
7, 2024,
2024, Defendant
Defendant was indicted
indicted with the
the following
following charges:
charges: (1) Theft
Theft of
of
24 24 Property (As a Second Degree Felony)
Felony) with Special
Special Allegation: Crimes Against Against the Community;
Community,
25 25 and (2) Official Misconduct (As Official Misconduct (As a Misdemeanor) with Special Allegation: Crimes Against Against the
the
26 26 Community. (Indictment, (Indictment, Jun.
Jun. 7,
7, 2024).
2024). These
Thesecharges
chargesare
arebased
basedon
onallegations
allegations that
that Defendant
Defendant
27 27 stole $5,860.00 $5,860.00 cash
cash from the University of Guam Business Office while while she was
was employed there
28 28 as a cashier.
cashier. (Deal.
(Deel. of
of Gloria Ann L.
L. Rudolph,
Rudolph, Am.
Am. Magistrate's Con
Compl., May 23, 2024).
People People v. Sikebert Case No.
No. CF0343-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 11 of
of66
l On September 24, 24, 2025,
2025,Defendant
Defendantfiled
filed the
the instant
instantMotion.
Motion. On
On October
October 14,
14, 2025,
2025, the
2 Government filed its Opposition.
3 On October 17, 17, 2025, the Court heard 2025, the heard sworn sworn testimony
testimony from
from Maria Louise L. Jorolan, Jorolan,
4 Guam Police Department Guam Police Department("GPD")
("GPD") Officer
Officer Aaron
AaronManglona,
Manglona, GPD
GPD Officer
OfficerSean
Sean Magada,
Magada, and
and
5 Defendant.
Defendant.
6 The Court ascertained thefollowing ascertained the following facts from from the
the witness testimony:
testimony:
7 1.
1. InIn2024,
2024, Defendant
Defendant was
was employed
employed at
at the
the University
University of
ofGuam
Guam Business
Business Office as
as aa
8 cashier.
cashier. Defendant's
Defendant's immediate
immediate supervisor
supervisor was Maria Louise L. Jorolan.
Jorolan.
9 2. On OnMay
May8,8,2024,
2024,Ms.
Ms.Jorolan
Jorolan spoke
spoke to GPD Officer
OfficerCrisostomo
Crisostomoabout
about missing money.
10 10 Jorolan testified Ms. Jorolan that Defendant testified that Defendant was was not
not in
in the
the office
officeon
onthat
thatday
daybecause
because she
she had
had
11 called in sick a few days before her last day day with the
the University.
University.
12 3. After Afterthat
thatdate,
date,Ms.
Ms.Jorolan
Jorolanspoke
spoketotoDefendant
Defendantthrough
throughmessages
messagesand
and had
had dinner with
113 Defendant and another Defendant and anotherco-worker co-workerafter
afterDefendant's
Defendant'semployment
employmentwith
withUOG.
UOG. Ms.
14 Jorolan could not recall the the exact
exact date
date of
ofthe
the dinner
dinnerbut
but knew itit was
was in
in the
the same
same month.
month.
15 15 4. During Duringthe
thedinner,
dinner,Ms.
Ms.Jorolan
Jorolanrecalled
recalledteasing
teasingDefendant
Defendant because
because she
she had received
16 16 an increment for her last paycheck and joked joked that Defendant would be treating them
17 17 to dinner. Ms.
Ms.Jorolan
Jorolanindicated
indicatedthat
that they
they spoke
spoke about
about UOG
UOG times
times and
and what Defendant
18 planning to was planning to do.
do.
19 5. Ms.
Ms.Jorolan
Jorolantestified
testifiedthat
thatititmight
mighthave
havecome
comeup
upininconversation
conversationthat
that they
they had
had spoken
spoken
20 to the police and that they and that they might
might want
wantto
to speak
speakwith
withher
herasaswell.
well. Ms. Jorolan testified testified
21 that she shementioned
mentionedthat
thateveryone
everyonein
inthe
theoffice
office that
thatwas
wasinvolved
involved or in the
thecashier
cashieroffice
office
22 that day day has
hasspoken
spokentotothe
thepolice
police and
andthey
theyalso
alsoneeded
neededto
tospeak
speaktotoher.
her. Since
Since Defendant
23 was not at work the day day that
that they
they were present, she would present, she would need to to speak
speak to
to the
the police
police
24 herself.
herself.
25 25 6. Ms.
Ms.Jorolan
Jorolandenied
denied telling
tellingDefendant
Defendantthat
that she
she would
would not receive
receive her
her paycheck
paycheck if she
she
26 did not speak to police.
speak to police. Ms.
Ms.Jorolan
Jorolan testified
testified that
that she
she does
does not sign or control
control the
27 checks and that that she
shedoes
doesnot
nothave
have the
the right
right to
to say she
she does not get her paychecks.
paychecks:
28
People v. People v. Sikebert Sikebert
Case No. CF0343-24 CF0343-24
Decision and Decision and Order
Page 2 of6 Page of 6 1 7. Ms.
Ms.Jorolan
Jorolandenied
deniedever
everthreatening
threateningDefendant
Defendantabout
about not
not speaking
speaking with
with the
the police that
2 night. Ms.
Ms. Jorolan
Jorolan testified
testified that
that they ended
ended the night
night on good terms.
3 8. Ms.
Ms. Jorolan
Jorolan testified
testified that
that although
although the evaluation indicated aa pay evaluation indicated pay raise raise was not
not
4 recommended but because the form was not turned turned in
in prior
prior to
toDefendant's
Defendant's anniversary
5 with the University she she was entitled to a raise.
6 OnMay 9. On May22,
22,2024,
2024,Defendant
Defendantwent
went to
to the
the Central
Central Precinct.
7 10. Officers Officers Manglona and Magada were told by desk watch that Defendant had walked
8 into the precinct regarding regarding the
the open
open theft
theft of
of property
property complaint.
complaint. Officers Manglona 9 Magada were and Magada were briefed
briefed by
by Officer
Officer Crisostomo
Crisostomo about
about the
the complaint
complaint prior
prior to
to
10 approaching Defendant.
11 11. Manglona observed Defendant sitting on a chair watery eyed.
l l. Officer Manglona
12 12 12. Officer Magada testified that Defendant appeared appeared to be nervous.
113 13. Defendant Defendant told
told the
the officers
officers that
that her boss
boss asked her to come down to the precinct to
14 14 provide a statement.
15 14. Defendant 14. Defendant was
was brought
brought into
into an
an interview room by Officer interview room Officer Manglona Manglona and
and Officer
Officer
16 Magada and was advised advised her
her Miranda
Miranda rights
rights..
17 17 15. Officer 15. Officer Manglona
Manglona asked
asked Defendant
Defendant about
about money
money that
that was
was missing
missing that had been
been
18 received by received by her.
her. Defendant
Defendant first
first admitted
admitted that
that she
she did
did receive
receive the money and then 19 19 recanted her statement and and said
said that
that her
her co-worker
co-worker received
received the
themoney.
money. When asked
20 what happened to the money and why it wasn't wasn't inputted
inputted into
into the
the database,
database, Defendant
-21 2 stated that they were busy and that her co-worker put it inside the cash box.
22 16. At some point in the interview Defendant admitted to taking the money and said that
23 23 she used it for bills, groceries, groceries, and
and gave
gave some
some money
money to
to her
her mom.
mom. Defendant left the
24 24 money inside inside aa cabinet
cabinet in aa storage room and took from it in increments.
25 17. Officer Manglona and Officer Magada both testified that they did not yell or threaten
26 26 Defendant at any time and that she was free to end the interview at any time. 27 18. Officer 18. Officer Manglona
Manglona testified
testified Defendant
Defendant did
did not
not mention
mention anything
anything about
about being
being
28 threatened to speak to to the
the police
police or
or anything
anything about her paycheck paycheck during the interview.
People v. Sikebert Case No. CF0343-24 Case No. CF0343-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 3 of6
of 6
1 19. Defendant wrote 19. Defendant wrote a written written statement.
statement. The written
written statement
statement did not include include any
any
2 statement aboutnot statement about notreceiving receiving a paycheck
paycheck for
for work.
3 20. testified that 20. Defendant testified that she went to the police police station
station because she
she received aa message
4 via WhatsApp via WhatsApp from
from her
her supervisor
supervisor saying that if she she doesn't
doesn't go
go and
and give
give aa statement,
statement,
5 she won't won't receive
receive her
her last
last check.
check. Defendant
Defendanttestified
testifiedthat
that she
she received
received the
the message
message
6 the day day before she went to the precinct.
7 21. Defendant Defendant testified
testified that if she did not receive her that if her pay pay check she would be struggling 8 to meet her and and her
hermother's
mother's bills.
bills.
9 22. not have 22. Defendant did not have aa copy copy of
of the WhatsApp message.
10 10 DISCUSSION
11 Defendant moves the Court Court to
to suppress
suppress all statements made to statements made to the
the police because
because they
12 "were "were made made at
at the
the behest of the state the threat state with the threatof
of withholding
withholding wages for noncompliance."
noncompliance."
13 1 (Mot.
(Mot. Suppress Suppress at 6). Defendant Defendant argues
argues that
that she
she was forced "to
"to choose
choose between
between her
her economic
economic
14 14 and her well-being and her fifth fifth amendment
amendmentright
rightagainst self-incrimination."Id.
againstself-incrimination." Id at 5. The Government 5. The Government
15 15 opposes, arguing thatGarrity Garrity does not apply as "the "the admissions
admissions made by the
the Defendant were not
16 made to her employer under threat threat of
of termination from employment employment but
but rather were made to law made to
17 17 enforcement that that were investigating aa criminal criminal matter
matter that
that neither
neither threatened the Defendant threatened the Defendant of
18 18 termination from from her
heremployment
employmentor
ordeprivation
deprivationof
ofher
herpaycheck."
paycheck." (Opp'n
(Opp'n at 3).
19 The Fifth Fifth Amendment
Amendment of
ofthe
the Constitution
Constitution of
ofthe
the United
United States
States provides that
that "[n]o
"[n]o person
20 20 ...
...shall shallbe becompelled
compelledin
inany
any criminal
criminal case
case to be a witness
witness against
againsthimself."
himself" U.S. Const.
Const. Amend.
21 V. "The answers "The such
answersofof sucha awitness witnesstotoquestions
questionsput
putto
tohim
him are
are not
not compelled
compelled within
within the
the meaning
22 of the of the Fifth Fifth Amendment
Amendment unless the witness unless the witness is
is required
required to
to answer
answerover
over his
his valid
valid claim of the
the
23 23 privilege."
privilege." Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S.
Murphy, 465 U.S. 420,
420, 427
427(1984).
(1984). Under Garrik
Garrityv.v.New
NewJersey,
Jersey, 385
24 24 U.S. 493 (1967), when a person personisiseither
eithergiven
giventhe
the"option
"option to
to lose their means
meansoflivelihood
of livelihood or to
25 the penalty pay the penalty of of self-incrimination
self-incrimination [it]
[it] isis the
the antithesis
antithesis of
offree
free choice
choiceto
tospeak
speak out
out or
or to remain
remain
26 silent. practice,like silent. That practice, like interrogation interrogationpractices
practices....
... reviewed
reviewed in
in Miranda v.
v. State
State of
ofArizona, is
27 likely likelyto toexert
exertsuch
such pressure
pressure upon an individual individual as to disable him from making a free and and rational
28 choice."
choice." 385 385 U.S. at
at 497.
497. Thus,
Thus, "the
"the protection
protection ofofthe
theindividual
individualunder
under the
theFourteenth
Fourteenth
People People v.
v. Sikebert
Case No.
No. CF0343-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 44 of6
of f
1 Amendment Amendment against against coerced statements prohibits use statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings subsequent criminal proceedings of
2 2 statements obtainedunder statements obtained underthe thethreat
threat
ofofremoval
removalfrom
fromoffice."
office." Id.
Id at
at 500.
500. "Garrity
"Garrity immunity is
3 contingent upon the thedegree
degreeof
of certainty
certainty that
thatan
anemployee's
employee'ssilence
silencealone
alonewill
will subject
subj et the
the employee
employee
4 4 to severe employment sanctions."
sanctions." United
United States
States v.
v. Palmquist, 712 F.3d
F.3d 640,
640,645
645(1st
(let Cir. 2013).
5 "[A]
"[A]public publicemployee
employeemay
maynot
notbe
becoerced
coercedinto
intosurrendering
surrendering his Fifth Amendment Amendment privilege by
6 threat of of being fired
fired or
or subjected
subjected to other
other sanctions, and
and cannot
cannotbe
beforced
forcedto
to choose
choose between
between selfself
-
7 incrimination or orjob
jobforfeiture."
forfeiture." United
United States
States v. Vangates,
Vangates, 287 F.3d 1315,
1315,1320
1320(11th
(l ltd Cir. 2002).
8 At At the
the time
time Defendant
Defendant went
went to
to Central
Central Precinct
Precinct Command
Command to
to provide
provide her
her statement
statement to
9 GPD, she she was no
no longer employed with the the University of
ofGuam
Guam as she
she had
hadresigned.
resigned. Therefore,
Therefore,
10 10 there was no threat that thatshe
shewould
wouldlose
lose her
herjob
job if she
she did not make
make a statement.
statement. Defendant argues,
11 however, however, that that she was told she would not receive receive her
her last
last paycheck
paycheck ififshe
she did
did not
not speak
speak with
with the
12 police. "The "Thestate
stateisisprohibited
prohibited ...
...from
fromcompelling
compellinga astatement
statement through economically coercive through economically
13 means, whetherthey means, whether they are aredirect
direct or
or indirect."
indirect." United States
States v.v. Montanye,
Montana, 500 F.2d 411,l, 415 415 (2d.
(2d.
14 14 1974).
1974). "In "Inthe
theabsence
absence of
ofaadirect
directthreat,
threat, [the
[the court]
court] determine[s]
determine[s] whether the [employee's]
whether the [employee's]
15 15 statements were compelled statements were compelled by by examining her belief, and examining her and more more importantly,
importantly, the
the objective
objective
16 16 circumstances surrounding surroundingit."
it." Vangantes,
Vangantes, 287 F.3d at 1321-22.
1321-22.
17 17 At the At the hearing,
hearing, GPD Officers
Officers Manglona
Manglonaand
and Magada
Magada testified
testified that
that Defendant
Defendant told them
them
18 18 she was at the the precinct because her boss hadasked asked her to make
make aastatement.
statement. Ms. Jorolan testified testified
19 19 that all all employees of the cashier's office officewere
wereto
tobe
beinterviewed
interviewedabout
aboutthe
the incident
incident and
and Defendant
20 20 had spoken to had not spoken to the the police previously
previously because
because she was not present the day present the day they
they came
came to the
21 University. Both BothGPD
GPDOfficers
Officerstestified
testifiedthat
thatDefendant
Defendantnever
nevertold
toldthem
themabout
about being
being threatened
threatened
22 22 to speak to to the
the police
police or anything
anything about
abouther
herpaycheck
paycheckduring
duringtheir
theirinterview.
interview. Officers
Officers Manglona
23 and also testified and Magada also testified that that they did
did not
not threaten
threaten Defendant at any time and that she and that she was
was free
free
24 to end the the interview at any time.
time. Although
AlthoughDefendant
Defendant testified
testifiedthat
that she
she was
was sent
sent a WhatsApp
25 25 message from her supervisor telling her that she will that she will not receive receive her
her last
last paycheck if
ifshe
she does not
26 go to the the precinct, she was unable unableto
toprovide
provide the
the actual
actualWhatsApp
WhatsAppmessage.
message. Her supervisor,
supervisor, Ms.
27 Jorolan, denied Jorolan, denied telling telling Defendant that she she would
would not receive her
her paycheck ififshe
she did
did not
not speak
speak to
28 Ms.Jorolan the police. Ms. Jorolanfurther furthertestified
testifiedthat
thatshe
shedoes
does not
notsign
signor
orcontrol
controlthe
thechecks
checks and
and that
that she
People People v.
v. Sikeberf
Sikebert
Case No. CF0343-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 5 of6
of 6
1 not have the right to say Defendant does not get her paycheck. In does not In light light of
ofall
all these
these facts,
facts, the
2 Court declines to find find that
that Defendant's
Defendant's subj ective belief subjective belief that
that she
she would not receive
receive her
her last
last
3 paycheck if paycheck go to if she did not go to the the police
police was
wasobjectively
objectively reasonable
reasonable and
anddenies
denies Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
4 to Suppress.
5 CONCLUSION
6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby,DENIES hereby.DENIES Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Suppress.
Suppress.
7
8 4TH day of November, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4TH
9
10 IO
II HONORABLE VERNON p. P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 12
113
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20 Sl!RVICI!VIA SERVICE VIAI:-e4IAI1.
11!-MAIL
. acknowledge the! an acicnow•edge tt1at ar- electfomc erectronit
21 21 CoDy Copy of
ot me
th€"0ng1 na»
011g,"a wasemailed
1 ,,.,a!o e ma-led to
to
As, /16 1 I'IIC
(?f'C
22
23 Da!ef/ Tune. Z'-4610
liar/ € /do n. 1
24 Deputy Deputy clerk
cler• .Super-or Lour of
Super•of Lourt of Guam
Guam
25
26
27
28
People People v.
v. Sikeberf
Sikebert
Case No.
No. CF0343-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 6 of6
of