People v. Sikebert

Opinion

\¥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 "'§

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 self- self-

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

10 IO

II HONORABLE VERNON p. P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 12

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

People People v. v. Sikeberf Sikebert Case No. No. CF0343-24 Decision Decision and and Order

Page Page 6 of6 of