By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

THE Superior Court of Guam issued on Monday an opinion on Ryan Paul Angoco’s case, sending the case back to lower court to determine whether the police officers investigating the September 2005 vehicular homicide erred in questioning the suspect, Angoco, who was 17 at the time.
Angoco was accused of driving a pickup truck in the September 2005 hit-and-run collision that resulted in the death of Japanese tourist Ayumi Yamahira.
He was granted to post bail after his lawyer, Mike Phillips, argued that police officers made a mistake of interrogating the defendant who was 17 years old when the accident happened.
Angoco, a Nimitz Hill resident, was charged with manslaughter as a first-degree felony, vehicular homicide while intoxicated as a second-degree felony, vehicular homicide as a second-degree felony, negligent homicide as a second-degree felony, driving while under the influence with injuries as a second-degree felony, leaving the scene of an accident as a felony, driving while under the influence as misdemeanor, reckless conduct as a misdemeanor, reckless driving as a misdemeanor, leaving the scene of an accident as a petty misdemeanor, and reckless driving as a petty misdemeanor.
The 27-year-old tourist from Hyogo, Japan died on the spot when the vehicle driven by Angoco veered onto the sidewalk near the Outrigger Guam Resort.
According to the defense, the police officer who interrogated Angoco failed to notify his parents prior to the investigation.
Such mistake was admitted by the trial court and granted the defense motion to suppress the written statement made by Angoco.
This prompted the government prosecutors to file an appeal before the Supreme Court questioning the decision of the Superior Court judge in releasing the defendant from jail.
The panel of Chief Justice F. Philip Carbullido, Associate Justice Robert J. Torres Jr. and Justice Pro Tempore Richard Benson heard oral arguments on Oct. 6, 2006.
In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Carbullido, the higher court announced the appropriate test to be used in suppressing statements made by defendants who have been given a Miranda Rights warning.
While recognizing that the officers made a mistake in not notifying the parents when the minor was taken into custody, the Supreme Court said this did not justify the suppression of evidence.