~F11LEO s~P~Of~ COIJRI OF GUAM
~AtJ~; 12 ~Wti1’,5 CLER~0F~U~. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CM0786-15
vs. DECISION AND ORDER RE DONALD JUNIOR TAIJERON, RESTITUTION
DOB: 05/25/1988
Defendant.
The Court here considers whether to award restitution following Defendant Donald
Junior Taijeron’s guilty plea to Criminal Mischief. Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments,
appropriate legal authorities, and the evidence in the record, the Court determines that no
restitution shall be awarded.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Taijeron pleaded guilty to Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor). Plea Agreement (July
10, 2017); J. (Jul. 10, 2017). The underlying offense involved damage to a portable bar and its
contents during a pageant at the Sheraton Hotel. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Defendant
agreed that he “shall be liable to [Sheraton] for restitution, if any.” Plea Agreement at 3; J. at 3.
While Taijeron was under probation, the People of Guam filed a restitution request
seeking $4,723.99 in property damage. People’s Restitution Request (July 24, 2018). The
restitution request attached a Sheraton Hotel “Food & Beverage Damage Report” and invoices
from various alcohol vendors. • DM0786-15 DECISION AM) ORDER RE RESTITUTION Page 2
The Court commenced the evidentiary hearing on restitution on December 17, 2019, but
the People failed to appear. The Court continued the hearing to January 3, 2020. On January 3,
2020, with all parties in attendance, the People called one witness: Mr. John Falan, Food and
Beverage Manager at Sheraton Hotel. Per Mr. Falan’s testimony:
1. At the time Taijeron’s incident occurred, Mr. Falan was elsewhere on the Sheraton
premises.
2. Mr. Falan lacks personal knowledge as to whether the destroyed bottles of alcohol
were full, partially full, or empty.
3. Mr. Falan did not order the replacements for the destroyed bottles.
4. Mr. Falan did not know if Sheraton could have repaired, rather than replaced, the
damaged portable bar.
5. Mr. Falan did not know whether Sheraton held an insurance policy that covered the
damaged items, whether Sheraton filed a claim against that insurance policy, or
whether Sheraton received insurance monies for the damaged items.
6. Mr. Falan did not prepare Sheraton’s damages report or assist in the preparation of the
report. Mr. Falan testified that he had no personal knowledge of any specific damage
figures and that his knowledge stemmed from reading the report.
Following Mr. Falan’s testimony, the People and Taijeron each indicated they did not
intend to call other witnesses. However, the People asked for a continuation to gather and
submit additional documentary evidence. The Court granted this request and continued the
hearing to February 7, 2020.
On February 7, 2020, the People produced no new documents and no further witnesses.
However, the People did move to admit their Restitution Request into evidence. Taijeron’s DM0786-15 DECISION AND ORDER RE RESTITUTION Page 3
counsel objected and requested a continuance to review the Restitution Request further. The
Court granted Taijeron’s request, declined to admit the Restitution Request into evidence at that
time, and continued the hearing to March 6, 2020.
On March 6, 2020, the People produced no new evidence but requested yet another
continuance. The Court reluctantly continued the hearing to April 3, 2020. Critically, the People
did not move to admit the Restitution Request into evidence at this hearing.
The Court held no hearing on April 3, 2020, because of the COVID-19 court closure.
The Court rescheduled the continued hearing for July 10, 2020, and gave notice to the parties.
Not. Remote Hearing (Jun. 12, 2020).
On July 10, 2020, the People failed to appear. The Court noted on the record that the
Restitution Request was still not admitted as evidence. Minute Entry (Jul. 10, 2020). To
effectuate finality in this long-running case, the Court elected to take the matter under
advisement.
According to the Adult Probation Office, other than restitution, Defendant has
successfully completed all conditions of his probation term. Minute Entry (Jul. 6, 2020).
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Guam law requires restitution in cases where the offender has been convicted of a crime
involving damage to the property of the victim. 9 GCA § 80.53. The Court may order a
defendant convicted of a misdemeanor to pay up to $1,000.00. Id. § 80.50(c). Alternatively, the
Court may order the defendant to pay an “amount equal to double the . . . loss to the victim
caused by the conduct constituting the offense by the offender.” Id. § 80.50(e). “Loss” means
“the amount of value separated from the victim.” 9 GCA § 80.50(e). The Court need not make DM07 86-15 DECISION AND ORDER RE RESTITUTION Page 4
specific findings to support restitution awards below $10,000.00, but must make specific
findings for awards exceeding $10,000.00. See People v. Mallo, 2008 Guam 23 ¶~J 40-43.
Guam law does not delineate the burden of proof in restitution matters. See People v.
Faisao, 2018 Guam 26 ¶ 13 n. 1. In the federal system, the government bears the burden of establishing loss by a preponderance of the evidence. Id., see also 18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(e)
(federal restitution statute). Confronted with this question, the Faisao court declined to adopt the
federal rule, electing instead to “assume solely for the purpose of [the case]” that the People bear
the burden of establishing loss by a preponderance of the evidence. Faisao, 2018 Guam 26 ¶ 13
n. 1. The Guam Supreme Court has not since revisited this issue, so without further guidance,
the Court will utilize the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Under federal law, the preponderance standard requires a restitution order to be
“supported by evidence in the record showing that it is more likely than not that the defendant’s
offense proximately caused the losses for which restitution was awarded and that it did so in the
amounts awarded.” United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1222 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis
added). Furthermore, the Court must only consider restitution evidence that offers “sufficient
indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” Id. at 122 1-22.
There is little doubt that Taijeron’s offense caused Sheraton to suffer some loss, but the
People’s evidence does not support the award they seek. The People never moved their
Restitution Request into evidence, so the Court cannot consider the invoices and documents
appended to it. The record contains the testimony of just one witness, John Falan. The Court
finds Mr. Falan’s testimony to be credible but ultimately unhelpful for the People’s position. Mr.
Falan testified that he was not present at the scene of the incident and that he lacks any personal
knowledge about the quantity, values, or replacement costs for any damaged items. Additionally, DM0786-15 DECISION AND ORDER RE RESTITUTION Page 5
Mr. Falan testified that he lacks any knowledge as to whether Sheraton had already received
compensation for their loss through insurance. The record therefore contains no evidence on
these critical issues. In short, because Mr. Falan lacks personal knowledge regarding Sheraton
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
~F11LEO s~P~Of~ COIJRI OF GUAM
~AtJ~; 12 ~Wti1’,5 CLER~0F~U~. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CM0786-15
vs. DECISION AND ORDER RE DONALD JUNIOR TAIJERON, RESTITUTION
DOB: 05/25/1988
Defendant.
The Court here considers whether to award restitution following Defendant Donald
Junior Taijeron’s guilty plea to Criminal Mischief. Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments,
appropriate legal authorities, and the evidence in the record, the Court determines that no
restitution shall be awarded.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Taijeron pleaded guilty to Criminal Mischief (As a Misdemeanor). Plea Agreement (July
10, 2017); J. (Jul. 10, 2017). The underlying offense involved damage to a portable bar and its
contents during a pageant at the Sheraton Hotel. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Defendant
agreed that he “shall be liable to [Sheraton] for restitution, if any.” Plea Agreement at 3; J. at 3.
While Taijeron was under probation, the People of Guam filed a restitution request
seeking $4,723.99 in property damage. People’s Restitution Request (July 24, 2018). The
restitution request attached a Sheraton Hotel “Food & Beverage Damage Report” and invoices
from various alcohol vendors. • DM0786-15 DECISION AM) ORDER RE RESTITUTION Page 2
The Court commenced the evidentiary hearing on restitution on December 17, 2019, but
the People failed to appear. The Court continued the hearing to January 3, 2020. On January 3,
2020, with all parties in attendance, the People called one witness: Mr. John Falan, Food and
Beverage Manager at Sheraton Hotel. Per Mr. Falan’s testimony:
1. At the time Taijeron’s incident occurred, Mr. Falan was elsewhere on the Sheraton
premises.
2. Mr. Falan lacks personal knowledge as to whether the destroyed bottles of alcohol
were full, partially full, or empty.
3. Mr. Falan did not order the replacements for the destroyed bottles.
4. Mr. Falan did not know if Sheraton could have repaired, rather than replaced, the
damaged portable bar.
5. Mr. Falan did not know whether Sheraton held an insurance policy that covered the
damaged items, whether Sheraton filed a claim against that insurance policy, or
whether Sheraton received insurance monies for the damaged items.
6. Mr. Falan did not prepare Sheraton’s damages report or assist in the preparation of the
report. Mr. Falan testified that he had no personal knowledge of any specific damage
figures and that his knowledge stemmed from reading the report.
Following Mr. Falan’s testimony, the People and Taijeron each indicated they did not
intend to call other witnesses. However, the People asked for a continuation to gather and
submit additional documentary evidence. The Court granted this request and continued the
hearing to February 7, 2020.
On February 7, 2020, the People produced no new documents and no further witnesses.
However, the People did move to admit their Restitution Request into evidence. Taijeron’s DM0786-15 DECISION AND ORDER RE RESTITUTION Page 3
counsel objected and requested a continuance to review the Restitution Request further. The
Court granted Taijeron’s request, declined to admit the Restitution Request into evidence at that
time, and continued the hearing to March 6, 2020.
On March 6, 2020, the People produced no new evidence but requested yet another
continuance. The Court reluctantly continued the hearing to April 3, 2020. Critically, the People
did not move to admit the Restitution Request into evidence at this hearing.
The Court held no hearing on April 3, 2020, because of the COVID-19 court closure.
The Court rescheduled the continued hearing for July 10, 2020, and gave notice to the parties.
Not. Remote Hearing (Jun. 12, 2020).
On July 10, 2020, the People failed to appear. The Court noted on the record that the
Restitution Request was still not admitted as evidence. Minute Entry (Jul. 10, 2020). To
effectuate finality in this long-running case, the Court elected to take the matter under
advisement.
According to the Adult Probation Office, other than restitution, Defendant has
successfully completed all conditions of his probation term. Minute Entry (Jul. 6, 2020).
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Guam law requires restitution in cases where the offender has been convicted of a crime
involving damage to the property of the victim. 9 GCA § 80.53. The Court may order a
defendant convicted of a misdemeanor to pay up to $1,000.00. Id. § 80.50(c). Alternatively, the
Court may order the defendant to pay an “amount equal to double the . . . loss to the victim
caused by the conduct constituting the offense by the offender.” Id. § 80.50(e). “Loss” means
“the amount of value separated from the victim.” 9 GCA § 80.50(e). The Court need not make DM07 86-15 DECISION AND ORDER RE RESTITUTION Page 4
specific findings to support restitution awards below $10,000.00, but must make specific
findings for awards exceeding $10,000.00. See People v. Mallo, 2008 Guam 23 ¶~J 40-43.
Guam law does not delineate the burden of proof in restitution matters. See People v.
Faisao, 2018 Guam 26 ¶ 13 n. 1. In the federal system, the government bears the burden of establishing loss by a preponderance of the evidence. Id., see also 18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(e)
(federal restitution statute). Confronted with this question, the Faisao court declined to adopt the
federal rule, electing instead to “assume solely for the purpose of [the case]” that the People bear
the burden of establishing loss by a preponderance of the evidence. Faisao, 2018 Guam 26 ¶ 13
n. 1. The Guam Supreme Court has not since revisited this issue, so without further guidance,
the Court will utilize the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Under federal law, the preponderance standard requires a restitution order to be
“supported by evidence in the record showing that it is more likely than not that the defendant’s
offense proximately caused the losses for which restitution was awarded and that it did so in the
amounts awarded.” United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1222 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis
added). Furthermore, the Court must only consider restitution evidence that offers “sufficient
indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy.” Id. at 122 1-22.
There is little doubt that Taijeron’s offense caused Sheraton to suffer some loss, but the
People’s evidence does not support the award they seek. The People never moved their
Restitution Request into evidence, so the Court cannot consider the invoices and documents
appended to it. The record contains the testimony of just one witness, John Falan. The Court
finds Mr. Falan’s testimony to be credible but ultimately unhelpful for the People’s position. Mr.
Falan testified that he was not present at the scene of the incident and that he lacks any personal
knowledge about the quantity, values, or replacement costs for any damaged items. Additionally, DM0786-15 DECISION AND ORDER RE RESTITUTION Page 5
Mr. Falan testified that he lacks any knowledge as to whether Sheraton had already received
compensation for their loss through insurance. The record therefore contains no evidence on
these critical issues. In short, because Mr. Falan lacks personal knowledge regarding Sheraton
Hotel’s loss, his testimony offers no indicia of reliability to support its probable accuracy. His
testimony, standing alone, does not provide a sufficient basis for the Court to make any specific
fmdings as to Sheraton Hotel’s loss.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The People had opportunities at five separate hearings, across more than eight months, to
present additional evidence regarding Sheraton Hotel’s alleged loss. At a bare minimum, the
People could have appeared on July 10, 2020, to move their Restitution Request into evidence.
Having not met this burden to support a restitution award by a preponderance of the evidence,
the Court DENIES the People’s Restitution Request.
Dated this 12th day of August 2020.
c€a~ HON. ELYZE M. IRIARTE Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Appearing Attorneys: For the People of Guam: Assistant Attorneys General Woodrow Pengelly, Leonard Rapadas, and Basil O’Mallan from the Office of the Attorney General For Defendant: Assistant Public Defenders Kristine Borja and David Highsmith from Public Defender Service Corporation V