People v. Tedtaotao

Opinion

FILED LED GLERKOFCOURT CLERK COUR1' 1 2025 JUN3030 PH 2025 JUN PH~:L: 33 2

3 ;*,Ur»zRzoR SUPERiOR 1 J GOU COUBJ GUAM tA.. . OF GUAM 4

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, )) CRIMINAL CRIMINALCASE CASENO. NO.CF0243-25 CF0243-25 8 )) GPD REPORT no. 25-08530 REPORT NO. 25-08530 )) 9 vs. )) ) IO 10 )) 11 II JATHAN JOHN JOHN PANGELINAN PANGELINAN ) DECISION AND ORDER TEDTAOTAO, aka Chums, )) RE. PEOPLE'S MOTION MOTION TO 12 12 DOB: DOB:12/15/1995 12/15/1995 ) CONSOLIDATE CONSOLIDATE CASES )) 13 13 Defendant. ) 14 > 15 INTRODUCTION

16 This matter came This camebefore before the theHonorable HonorableMaria MariaT. T. Cenzon Cenzon upon uponthe thePeople Peopleof of Guam's Guam's("th ("the

17 17 People") Motion MotiontotoConsolidate ConsolidateCases Cases (the (the"Motion"). "Motion").Representing RepresentingDefendant DefendantJathan Jathan John Jo 18 18 Pangelinan Tedtaotao Tedtaotao ("Defendant" ("Defendant" or "Defendant Tedtaotao") is is Attorney Attorney Joseph Joseph C. Razzano. Razzano. 19 19 Representing the thePeople People is is Assistant AssistantAttorney Attorney General GeneralChristine ChristineS.S.Tenorio. Tenorio.After After having having receive received 20 20

21 and reviewed reviewed the papers papers and the the file file herein herein and and the relevant relevant case case authority, authority, the the Court Court issues issues the

22 following following Decision Decisionand and Order DENYING the People's Motion.

23 RELEVANT BACKGROUND 24 24 A. Procedural History for CF0243-25 CF0243-25 and CF0253-25 25 In In CF0243-25, -25, on onApril April 17, 17, 2025, the grand jury jury returned an Indictment Indictment against Defendan Defendant 26

27 27 for the following following offenses: offenses: the the First Charge of Attempted Aggravated Murder (As (As a First Degree

28 28 Felony), with Special Special Allegation: Possession and Use Possession and Use of of a Deadly Deadly Weapon Weapon in in aa Felony, Felony, and an

People Peopl e v. Tedtaotao, Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0243-25 Decision and Decision and Order Re. People's Motion to People's Motion to Consolidate Consolidate Cases Page 11 of8 1 Notice: Commission Commission of of aa Felony Felony While While on on Felony Felony Release, Release; the Second Charge Charge of Attempted Attempte 2 Murder Murder (As aa First Degree Felony), with Special Special Allegation: Allegation:Possession Possession and and Use Use of ofaa Deadly Dead! 3 Weapon Weapon in a Felony, and Notice: Commission and Notice: Commission of of a Felony While While on on Felony Felony Release, Release; the Third Thir 4

5 Charge Kidnapping (As Charge of Kidnapping (As a First Degree Degree Felony), withSpecial Special Allegation: Allegation:Possession Possession and and Use Us

6 of of aDeadly DeadlyWeapon WeaponininaaFelony, Felony, and Notice: Commission and Notice: of aFelony Commission of FelonyWhile Whileon onFelony Felony Release, Release; 7 7 the Fourth FourthCharge Chargeof ofKidnapping Kidnapping(As (As aaFirst FirstDegree DegreeFelony), Felony), withSpeeialAllegation.' Special Allegation:Possession Possessio 8 8 and Use of and of a Deadly Deadly Weapon Weapon in in aa Felony, Felony, and and Notice: Notice: Commission Commission of of a Felony Felony While While on on Felony Felon 9 Release, Release; the the Fifth Charge Charge of Aggravated Assault Assault (As aa Second Second Degree Felony), with Special Specia 1100 11 11 Allegation: Possession andUse Possession and Useof ofaDeadly DeadlyWeapon Weapon in in aaFelony, Felony, and and Notice: Notice: Commission of Commission of

12 12 Felony While While on Felony Felony Release, the Sixth Charge Release; the Charge of of Aggravated Assault Assault (As (As a Third Degree

13 1 Felony), with Special Special Allegation; Allegation: Possession Possession and Use Use of ofaa Deadly Deadly Weapon Weapon in in aa Felony, Felony, and an 14 14 Notice: No/ice: Commission Commission of ofaa Felony Felony While While on on Felony Felony Release, Release; the Seventh Charge Charge of of Aggravated 15 15 16 Assault (As a Third Degree Felony), with Special Assault (As Special Allegation: Allegation:Possession Possession and and Use Use of of a Deadly Dead! 16

17 17 Weapon Felony, and Weapon in a Felony, andNotice: Notice: Commissionof ofFelony a FelonyWhile Whileon onFelony Felony Release, Release; and the the Eight Eighth

18 Charge Charge of Destruction of Evidence Destruction of Evidence (As (As aa Misdemeanor). Misdemeanor). See See Indict. Indict. (Apr. 17, 17, 2025). 2025). The Th 19 19 | . . . averments contained contained in in the the Indictment Indictment stem stemfrom from events events that thatallegedly allegedly occurred occurred on on April Aprll 2, 2, 2025, 2025, 20 20 and namesMichael and names MichaelBlas Blas("Blas") ("Blas") as as the the victim victim for for Charges Charges 1I through through 7. Id. 21

22 22 In CF0253-25, CF0253-25, on April April 28, 28,2025, 2025, the thegrand grandjury juryreturned returnedaaSuperseding Indictment 1 SupersedingIndictments

23 against DefendantJeromy against Defendant JeromyMoe Moe John JohnPangelinan Pangelinan("Defendant ("DefendantPangelinan") Pangelinan")for for the the following

24 24 offenses: the First offenses: the First Charge Charge of of Attempted Attempted Aggravated Aggravated Murder Murder(As (As a First First Degree Degree Felony) with wit 25 25 Special Allegation: Possession andUse Possession and Useofofa Deadly Deadly Weapon in the Weapon in the Commission Commissionof ofa Felony, Felony; the th 26 Second Charge of Second Charge of Attempted Attempted Murder Murder(As (As a First First Degree Degree Felony) Felony) with with Special Special Allegation: Allegation: 27 27

1 The grand jury returned an Indictment against Defendant Pangelinan on April 22, 2025 . 1 The grand jury returned an Indictment against Defendant Pangelinan April 22, 2025.

People People v. v. Tedtaotao, Tedtaotao, Criminal Case Case No. CF0243-25 Decision Decision and and Order Order Re. People's People's Motion Motion to to Consolidate Consolidate Cases Cases Page Page 2 of 8 I

1 Possession and Use Possession and Use of of a Deadly Weapon Weapon in the Commission of a Felony, Commission of Felony; the Third Charge Charge of 2 . . . . • I Armed Cary Carjacking ackmg(As (As aa First FlrstDegree Degree Felony) Felony) with Special Al wlth Specml Allegation: Possession and l egation: Possession and Use Use of of 3 3 Deadly Weapon Weapon in the Commission of a Felony, Commission of Felony; the Fourth Charge Charge of of Armed Carjacking (As a Carjacking (As 4 4 5 First Degree Degree Felony) Felony) with Special Special Allegation: Allegation:Possession Possession and and Use Use of ofaa Deadly Deadly Weapon Weapon in in the the 5

66 Commission Commission ofofa Felony, Felony; the Fifth Charge of Aggravated Assault Charge of Assault (As (As a Second Degree Degree Felony) Felony)

7 withSpecial Special Allegation Allegation: Possession andUse Possession and Useofofa Deadly Weapon Weapon ininthe theCommission Commissionofofa Felony; Felony, 8 8 the Sixth Charge the Charge of of Aggravated Aggravated Assault Assault (As (As a Second Degree Degree Felony) Felony) with Special Special Al Allegation: 99 Possession andUse Possession and Useofofa Deadly Deadly Weapon in the Weapon in theCommission Commissionofofa Felony, Felony; the Seventh Charge Charge of 10 11 11 Assault (As Aggravated Assault (As a Third Degree Degree Felony) Felony) withSpecial Special Allegation: Allegation:Possession Possession and and Use of

12 12 a Deadly Weapon Weaponininthe theCommission Commissionofofa Felony, Felony; the Eighth Charge Charge of of Aggravated Assault (As (As a

13 13 Third Degree Felony) with Degree Felony) with Special Allegation: Possession andUse Possession and Useof ofaDeadly DeadlyWeapon Weapon in in the th 14 14 of a Felony; Commission of ony, the Ninth Charge Charge of of Aggravated Assault Assault (As (As a Third Degree Felony) 15

16 with Special Allegation.' Possession Special Allegation: Possessionand andUse Useofof Weaponininthe a Deadly Weapon theCommission Commissionofof Felony, a Felony; 16

17 17 the Charge of the Tenth Charge of Aggravated Aggravated Assault Assault(As (As a Third Degree Degree Felony) Felony) with Special Special Allegation:

18 18 Possession andUse Possession and Useofofa Deadly Deadly Weapon in the Weapon in theCommission Commissionofofa Felony, Felony; the Eleventh Charge Charge oof 19 19 | . . . . Possesslon of an Possession of an Unregistered UnreglsteredFirearm Flrearm(As (As aa Third Thlrd Degree Degree Felony); Felony), and the Twelfth and the Twelfth Charge Charge of 20 Possession of a Schedule Schedule II II Controlled Substance Substance(As (As a Third Third Degree Felony). See Super. Super. Indict., 21

22 CF0253-25 (Apr. (Apr. 22, 22, 2025). 2025). The Theaverments averments as as contained contained in in the Superseding Indictment stem from 22

23 23 events that that allegedly occurred on allegedly occurred on April April 2, 2, 2025, 2025, and April 5, and April 5, 2025. 2025. Id. Blas Blas is is the the named victim victim as a 24 24 to the the allegations allegations surrounding April 2, 2, 2025, and Keith Santos surrounding April 2025, and Santos ("Santos") and and Isaiah Isaiah Hayes Haye 25 25 ("Hayes") ("Hayes")are arethe thenamed named victims victims surrounding the alleged surrounding the alleged events of of April April 5, 5, 2025. Id. 2025. Id. 26 26 In In CF0243-25, Defendant Tedtaotao Tedtaotao asserted asserted his his speedy speedy trial trial rights rightson onJune June 13, 13, 2025. See 27 27 28 28 Assert. of ofSpeedy Trial, CF0248'-25 Speedy Trial, (Jun. 13, CF0243-25 (Jun. 13,2025). 2025).In In CF0253-25, CF0253-25, Defendant Pangelinan Pangelinan asserted

People People v. v. Tedtaotao, Tedtaotao, Criminal CriminalCase Case No. No.CF0243-25 CF0243-25 Decision Decision and OrderRe. and Order Re. People's People's Motion Motion to to Consolidate Consolidate Cases Cases Page 3 of 8 I

1 his speedy trial rights at arraignment arraignment on June 5, 2025. Min. Min. Entry, Entry, CF0253-25 (Arraignment (Arraignment) (Jun. 2 5, 2025).22 3 In the instant matter, matter, the the People filed the Motion on June 19, 19, 2025. Defendant Defendant Tedtaotao Tedtaota 4

5 Opposition on filed his Opposition onJune June 23, 23, 2025 2025.

6 B. The The People People seek consolidationof seek consolidation ofCF0243-25 CF0243-25 and and CF0253-25. CF0253-25.

7 seek to consolidate The People seek consolidate CF0243-25 CF0243-25 and and CF0253-25 CF0253-25 as one matter before the court co 8 assigned to Defendant Pangelinan's Pangelinan's matter, CF0253-25. 3 See Ppl. matter, CF0253-25.3 Pp!. 's Mot. at 1I The People cite to 8 9 GCA §§ GCA §§ 55.35(b) and 65.30(a) 55.35(b) and as the 65.30(a) as the statutory statutory basis basis for for the Motion. See the Motion. Id at See Id. 4. The at 4. The People People assert asse 10 10

11 II jointer is thatjoinder is appropriate because both defendants and their alleged conduct occurred in the same

12 12 act or transaction against the Victim, Victim, Michael MichaelBlas. Blas. See Id. atat 4-5 See Id. 4-5.. Further, Further, on on the basis of judicial

13 1 economy,joinder economy, jointer isisappropriate appropriate because: because: (1) (1) both both defendants defendants have have asserted asserted their their speedy speedy trial trial rights, 14 14 thus both trials trials would would commence at at the same time, time, (2) (2) both both trials have the same same witnesses, witnesses, (3) (3) iti 15 15 16 traumatize the would traumatize the Victim Victim to have to testify twice in both trials trials so so close in time, and (4) the 16

17 defenda nts would defendants suffer pr would not suffer prejudice ejudice because use the defendants the defenda not ma nts did not make incriminatin ke incr imina ting

18 18 statements against each other. See Id. at 5. 19 19 consolidation of Defendant Tedtaotao opposes consolidation of both both matters. matters. First, First, Defendant Defendant Tedtaotao Tedtaotao 20 20 asserts that asserts that the the evidence evidence of of the alleged events on April the alleged April 5, 5, 2025, 2025, do do not not support support Defendant Defendan 21

Tedtaotao's involvement. involvement. See See Defy. Deft. 's Opp 'n. 'n. at at 3. 3. Defendant Defendant Tedtaotao Tedtaotaowould would suffer suffer prejudice by 22 22

23 23 the April 5 evidence since he was not involved. involved. Id. at 3-4. Id. at

24 24

26 26 2 2 Representing Representing Defendant Defendant Pangelinan Pangelinan in in CF0253-25 CF0253-25 is Attorney Thomas Thomas J.J. Fisher. 3 27 27 isThe The matter matterininCF0253-25 CF0253-25waswas originally originally assigned assigned to to Judge Judge Arthur Arthur R. R. Barcinas Barcinas on on April 16, 2025. See April 16, ofJudg Ntc. ofJzldge See Nth. Assign., CF0253-25 (Apr. Assign., CF0253-25 (Apr. 16, 16,2025). 2025).On OnJune June 20, 20, 2025, 2025, Judge Judge Barcinas Barcinas refused recused himself himselffrom from this this matter, matter, citing to 28 28 unsolicited information receiving unsolicited information concerning thethe alleged events. See See Dis qualyication 7 GCA § 6106 Memorandum, Disqualification CF0253-25 (Jun. CF0253-25 (Jun. 20, 2025). CF0253-25 CF0253-25 hashas since been reassigned toto Judge Judge Alberto Tolentino on Alberto E. Tolentino on June June 23, 2025. See Ntc. See ofJudge Assign., Nth. of.]udge Assign., CF0253-25 CF0253-25 (Jun. (Jun. 23, 2025).

People People v. v. Tedfaofao, Tedtaotao, Criminal Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0243-25 CF0243-25 Decision Decision and Re. People's and Order Re. People's Motion Motion to to Consolidate Consolidate Cases Cases Page Page 4 of 8 .|

1 Further, the events of April 2 and April 5 do not constitute a continuing event event but, rather, 2 I . u I I I two dlscrete events with discrete events wlth differences. dlfferences.Id. Id.at at4-5 4-5(citing (cltlng88GCA GCA §§ 65.30). 6530). Because Because of of the difference the differenc 3 between the two events, the People did not initially bring them together under a single indictment 4

5 - if if so, so, they they would would have have brought brought them them together together under under aa single single indictment pursuanttoto88GCA indictment pursuant GCA §§

6 55.35. Id. Id. at at 5.5.Finally, Finally, consolidating consolidating the the cases cases together together may mayraise raise concern concernof ofaffecting affectingDefendant' Defendant's

7 7 speedy trial trial rights. rights. Id. Id. ((citing People People v. Corpuz, Corpus, 2019 Guam ,r 26). Issues Guam 11 1126). Issuesof of timeliness timeliness and notic notice 8 8 requirements would requirements would be raised, raised, and and Defendant's substance substance rights rights could could be be prejudiced. prejudiced. Id. Id. (citing citin 9 Corpuz ,r,r Corpus W 30-34, v. Riocne, 2012 Guam 30-34; citing also People v. ,r 10). Guam 55 11 10).Thus, Thus,the thePeople's People's Motion 10 10

11 11 should be denied, and Defendant Tedtaotao's Tedtaotao's matter matter should should proceed proceed before this Court. Court. Id. at 5.

12 12 DISCUSSION 13 Under Guam law, "[t]he "[t]he court court may may order order two two or ormore more indictments indictments or or information information or or both bot 14 14 to be tried together if the offenses, and the defendants if there is more than one, could have been 15

16 joined in in a single indictment or information. information. The Theprocedure procedureshall shall be be the the same same as as ififthe the prosecution 16

17 17 were under under such suchaasingle singleindictment indictmentororinformation." information."88GCA GCA §§ 65.30. 65.30.In In addition. addition."[t]lwo "[t]lwo (2) (2) or o

18 more offenses may be charged in the same indictment indictment or or information in in aa separate separate count for each 19 19 offense ififthe offense the offenses offensescharged chargedare areofofthe thesame sameor orsimilar similarcharacter character or orare are based based in in the the same same act act oor 20 20 transaction or on two (2) or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a 21 21

22 common scheme or common scheme or plan." plan." 88 GCA GCA §§ 55.35(a). 55.35(a). The The language of 8 language of GCA §§ 8 GCA and 55.35 65.30and §§65.30 55.35 are ar 22

23 23 permissive instead of permissive instead of mandatory-therefore, mandatory-therefore, the the Court Court has has discretion discretion as as to to whether whether or or not to

24 24 consolidate cases. consolidate cases. See United States v. See United v. Qaoud, Qaoud, 777 F.2d 1105, 1118 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, cert. denied, 25 25 484 U.S. 832, 832, 108 108 S.Ct. S.ct. 107, 98 98 L.Ed.2d 67 (1987). 26 26 When determining whether the determining whether the offenses are properly properly joined, joined, courts courts have have traditionally traditionall 27

28 28 considered "whether the considered "whether the charges charges are are laid under the same same statute, statute, whether they involve involve similar simila

People People v. v. Tedtaotao, Tedtaotao, Criminal Criminal CaseNo. Case No. CF0243-25 CF0243-25 Decision Decision and OrderRe. and Order Re. People's People's Motion MotiontotoConsolidate Consolidate Cases Cases Page 5 of8 of u

1 victims, locations, victims, locations, or modes of of operation, operation, and and the time time frame frame in in which which the thecharged charged conduct conduc 2 occurred." occurred." United United States States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 973 (1st 967, 973 (let Cir. Cir. 1995) 1995) (citations (citations omitted). omitted). Further, Further, 3 "the "the validity validity ofjoining of joiningoffenses offensesisisdetermined determinedsolely solelyby bythe theallegations allegations in in the the indictment." indictment." United Unite 4

5 States v. v. Greene, Greene, 52 F.3d 335, 335, *1 *1 (9th (9th Cir. Cir. 1995) 1995) (citing (citing United United States States v. v. Lane, 474 U.S. U.S. 438, 438, 447 5

6 (1986)). 1

7 A. 7 In Inthis thiscase, case, consolidation of both cases would not cases would not promote promote judicial judicial economy. economy. 8 The People People assert assert that case case consolidation would would promote promote judicial judicial economy "because the 9 same witnesseswill same witnesses will be needed needed for for both trials." trials."Ppl. 's 's Mot. at 5. "Considerations of of efficiency efficiency and an 10

11 11 judicial economy judicial economyweigh weighheavily heavilyin infavor favorofjoinder." ofjoinder." United United States v. v. Richards, 94 F.Supp.2d 304:

12 12 310 (E.D.N.Y (E.D.N.Y 2000). 2000).However, However,this thismatter matterisisunusual unusualininthat thatboth bothdefendants defendants have have asserted asserted their 13 13 right to speedy speedy trial. trial. Defendant Defendant Tedtaotao Tedtaotaoasserted asserted his his right rightto tospeedy speedytrial trialon onJune June 13, 13, 2025, 2025, and an 14 14 Defendant Pangelinan asserted his right asserted his right to speedy trial at at arraignment arraignment on on June 5, 2025. June 5, 2025. For the 15 15 Court to consolidate consolidate these cases at this juncture, juncture, forcing forcing the parties to regroup and prepare for a and prepare 16 16

17 17 consolidated trial, would foreseeable consolidated trial, foreseeably require require increased increased expenditure resources. 4 This expenditure of resources.4 This is an a

18 18 example of of an an unusual casewhere unusual case where case case consolidation consolidation would would not not promote promote judicial judicial economy. See 19 19 e.g.. .. United States States v.v. Jordan, Jordan, No. No. 3:07-CR-44, 3:07-CR-44, 2008 2008 WL 2901816 2901816 (E.D. Tenn. Tenn. July 22, 22, 2008) 2008 20 20 (consolidation consolidation denied denied where where defendants ready for trial, while defendants in one action were ready while defendants defendants in in the 21

other other action were not prepared to proceed in trial). Because prepared to Because the People People brought brought forward forward their thei 22 22

23 23 Motion, the the Court Court envisions envisions that that the People are are prepared prepared to bring a consolidated matter to trial, matter to 24 24

26 26

27 27 4 4 Because both defendants are detained, pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.60, the Court has forty-tive (45) days to bring the Because both defendants are detained, pursuant to 8 GCA § 80.60, the Court has forty-five (45) days to bring th 28 matter toto trial. Defendant Tedtaotao's Tedtaotao's speedy speedy trial trialclock clockexpires expireson onJuly July28, 28, 2025, 2025, and and Defendant Pangelinan's Pangelinan's speedy speed trial clock clockexpires expiresononJuly July 20, 2025. Suchtime 2025. Such time limits limits require more more preparation preparationfrom from the theparties partiesfor for trial-and trial-and even more so if ifconsolidation consolidation were were granted. granted.

People v. Tedtaotao, Tedtaotao, Criminal Case Case No. CF0243-25 CF0243-25 Decision Decision and and Order Order Re. People's People's Motion Motion to to Consolidate ConsolidateCases Cases Page Page 6 of 8 1 whereas the same cannot be envisioned for the defense. envisioned for defense. Thus, consolidation consolidation of of these matters under 2 2 the premise of promoting judicial judicial economy is rejected. 3 Additionally, joining the Additionally, joining the defendants poses aa potential risk of having defendants poses having to to sever the the defendant defendants 4

5 for constitutional issues, resulting resulting in in aa delay delay of of the the defendants' speedy trial defendants' speedy trial rights. 5

6 B. B. The factual The factual basis basis for both both Indictments Indictmentsdo donot notconstitute constitute all allthe thesame same acts acts or or the the same sam common scheme. scheme. 7

8 Notwithstanding the Court's above discussion of of case consolidation based on promoting

9 judicial judicial economy, the Court Court next reviews whether whether consolidation consolidation is is appropriate appropriate based upon the 10 10 charges as alleged in these matters' Indictments. Indictments. The The People People assert assert that that both cases cases constitute the 11 11 same act or transaction because because both matters matters involve involve the same victim, Blas. See Ppl. 's Mot. Mot. at 4- 12 12 5. Although Blas is named as a victim in both matters, in CF0253-25, CF0253-25, the the Superseding Indictment 13 13

14 14 against Defendant against Defendant Pangelinan Pangelinan only only names names Blas Blas as as the the victim victim in Charges 6, 7, 7, and and 8 out of of the

15 15 twelve (12) charges against against him. Tedtaotao is him. Defendant Tedtaotao is not not alleged alleged to to have have committed crimes 16 16 against Santos and and Hayes, Hayes, thus thus Defendant Defendant Tedtaotao Tedtaotao would suffer the would suffer the risk of prejudice ifif the Court 17 17 were to grant consolidation because there is is a high high risk, even even with with aa jury instruction, of of attributing 18 18 19 the evidence of of crimes against the the victims victims named named in Pangelinan's case to Defendant Defendant Tedtaotao. 19

20 In addition, the Court finds that the the acts acts alleged alleged on April 2 and April 5 do not not constitute constitut

21 the sa the me aacts same cts or or common common scheme scheme aass pr escr ibed in prescribed in 88 GCA GCA §§ 55. 35(a ) beca 55.35(a) were "they wer use "they because 22 u . a . . substantive offenses, separate substantlve separate and and distinct, dlstlnct, complete complete in themselves, themselves, and independent of each other, of each 23 23 committed committed at different times." McElroy v. US., 164 164 U.S. 76, 17 S.Ct. S.ct. 31, 31, 32 L.Ed. (1896). 24 24

25 CF0243-25 CF0243-25 involve exclusively the alleged events events surrounding surrounding April April 2, 2, 2025. Defendant

26 Tedtaotao is alleged to have committed crimes crimes against against Blas Blas on on this date, specifically the charges 27 27 of Attempted Attempted Aggravated Aggravated Murder, Murder, Aggravated Murder, Murder, Kidnapping, Kidnapping, and and Aggravated Aggravated Assault. Assault. 28 28 Although CF0253-25 involve the the events of April April 2, 2, 2025, 2025, Defendant Defendant Pangelinan Pangelinan is only only charged charge

People People v. v. Tedtaotao, Tedtaotao, Criminal CriminalCase Case No. No. CF0243-25 CF0243-25 Decision Decision and Re. People's and Order Re. People's Motion Motion to to Consolidate Consolidate Cases Cases Page 7 of8 of L ¢

1 with the the offenses of of Aggravated Aggravated Assault Assault against against Blas, Blas, not not the the Murder Murder or or Kidnapping Kidnapping charges. charges. 2 » . . . n n Further, Defendant Further, Defendant Pangelinan Pangelman is named exclusively involvedwlth excluslvely involved withevents eventsofofApr11 April 5, 5, 2025, 2025, and and is is 3 alleged alleged to have have committed committed crimes against Santos Santos and andHayes, Hayes,specifically specifically the the charges charges of of Attempted 4

5 Aggravated Murder, Murder, Attempted Murder, Murder, Armed Armed Carjacking, Carjacking, Attempted Armed Armed Carjacking, Carjacking, and an

6 Aggravated Assault-all unrelated Aggravated Assault-all unrelated to to the the events events of of April April 2. Additionally, the events Additionally, the events of April 2

7 Yigo, 5 whereas the events occurred in Yigo,5 events of ofApril April55occulTed occurred in inTalofofo Talofofoand Dededo. 6The andDededo.6 TheCou11 Cou 8 finds that, becausethe that, because the alleged alleged crimes crimes involve different different times, times, dates, dates, locations, locations, and and respective respectiv 9 victims-the events victims-the events surrounding surrounding April 22 and and April April55do donot notconstitute constitutethe the same same act act or or transaction transactio 10 10

11 11 or or the the same common scheme same common schemeas asprescribed prescribedinin88GCA GCA §§ 55.35(a). 55.35(a).

12 12 CONCLUSION 13 For the the above above reasons, the People's Motion for reasons, the for Consolidation Consolidation of of Criminal Criminal Cases Cases is 1

14 14 DENIED. 15 15 SO ORDERED this 30th day of June, 2025. 16 16

18 u 19 19 HONORABLE MARIA T. CENZON 20 20 Judge, Superior Court of Guam Judge,

22 22 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL 23 23 II acknowledge acknowledge thatthat an an electronic electronic copy of copy of the w,;; the original original was e-mailed to:

24 /H9$ .:r &-zz-w, /cf!I> 31 h2w0 25

26 26 DU¢3U J~~~-:-~, f§EV§h2| :!EVan .. ~ ~ »- u»zsnme.'"l358 z~-□%_mt 'L. _ &j :}q- _T0`pésna',,» Topa~na--49. Deputy Clerk, Superior Court of Guam 27 27

28 28 55 See See Deel. Deal. of Prob. Prob. Cause, CF0243-25 (Apr. 10, 2025). Cazlse, CF0243-25 66 See See Deel. Deal. of of Prob. Prob. Cause, 12, 2025). CF0253-25 (Apr. 12, Cause, CF0253-25

People v. Tedfaotao, Tedtaotao, Criminal Case Case No. No. CF0243-25 CF0243-25 Decision Decision and Re. People's and Order Re. People's Motion Motion to to Consolidate Consolidate Cases Cases Page 8 of 8 8