SUPERIOR Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja has denied the motion to dismiss the contempt case against Shayne Villanueva.
Represented by attorney Keith Chambers, Villanueva has asked the court to dismiss the contempt charge against him because his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as well as his right to counsel were violated.
In a 13-page order, the judge also denied Villanueva’s motion to strike the sections of the information titled “Joint W&L JGO Committee” and “Relevant Findings of the Joint Committee.”
But the judge granted Villanueva’s motion to strike paragraph 41 of the information titled “Contumacious Conduct by Villagomez [sic].”
Background
Villanueva is the owner of Roil Soil Marketing, which the administration of then-Gov. Ralph DLG Torres contracted to help implement BOOST in 2022.
BOOST stands for “Building Optimism, Opportunities and Stability Together,” a $17 million federally funded program of the previous administration.
On March 5, 2024, Villanueva appeared before the House Special Committee on Federal Assistance & Disaster-Related Funding and invoked his Fifth Amendment right when asked questions about BOOST. After the committee found him in contempt, Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez transmitted to Attorney General Edward Manibusan a “certification of statement of contempt” pertaining to Villanueva.
On March 22, 2024, Villanueva self-surrendered at the Department of Corrections after an arrest warrant was issued against him for contempt. He posted a $1,000 bail for his release.
During an arraignment on April 2, 2024, Villanueva pled not guilty to the charge of contempt of Legislature.
Ruling
According to Judge Naraja, Villanueva argued that he was deprived of his right to counsel, but it appears that neither he nor his counsel asserted that right.
“Defendant’s claim that his counsel was forced to sit behind him is belied by the footage of the hearing provided as an exhibit to the present motion, which shows the [House] Sergeant-at-Arms wordlessly gesturing to a seat behind defendant and defendant’s counsel complying without protest,” the judge said. “Though not an exacting standard, in the context of a criminal case, a suspect must invoke their right to counsel clearly and unambiguously,” he added.
“It does not appear that defendant or his counsel at any point requested to sit together at the witness table,” the judge said.
He noted that Villanueva was neither a criminal suspect nor a criminal defendant. “He was a witness in a legislative hearing. As such, the scope of his right to counsel is far more limited,” the judge said.
Villanueva contends that he was injured by the denial of his right to legal advice during the hearing, but according to the judge, “he was permitted to consult with his counsel before the hearing and during recesses and stated that he was pleading the Fifth on the advice of counsel.”
As to Villanueva’s invoking a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege to answer any BOOST-related questions, Judge Naraja said, “The court’s understanding is that defendant is not subject of any other investigations. Indeed, defendant is not even the subject of this investigation. … The risk of incrimination here is far more attenuated.”
The judge added, “Defendant argues that any and all BOOST-related questions are potentially incriminating because hypothetically, if he had committed any violation of Commonwealth law, admitting to it before the legislative committee could expose him to criminal liability. However, the prosecution has not stated any intention to pursue a criminal investigation into the defendant, nor is he named in the information or the 2023 Referral Report. Nothing in the record so far suggests that the defendant is central to the Government’s case or personally subject to any criminal investigation. At this stage of the proceedings, the court lacks sufficient knowledge of defendant’s particular vulnerability to prosecution as to merit upholding a blanket assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination,” the judge added.
As to Villanueva’s second contention that he was justified in pleading the Fifth in response to a question about his educational background and marketing credentials, the judge said he found “defendant’s résumé fraud hypothetical … unpersuasive.”
“The BOOST investigation specifically concerns the ex-Governor and specific members of his cabinet’s alleged misconduct and abuse of public funds. If the questions about defendant’s educational background revealed that he lacked the credentials for this position as marketer of the BOOST program, it could furnish a link in the chain of evidence that those who hired him were misusing public funds. But it is not a crime to accept a position for which one is unqualified. It is not remotely evident to the court that the two questions to which defendant pled the Fifth could result in injurious disclosures,” the judge said.
Villanueva’s bench trial has been set for Nov. 6-8, 2024.
