THE CNMI Supreme Court has dismissed the government’s appeal on a case involving a mentally ill man convicted of murder.
Saying that the government has no right to pursue the appeal under the Commonwealth Code, the high court reinstated the trial court’s two rulings in the case against Dwayne Sibetang.
The trial court has ruled that individuals detained as criminal suspects are entitled to the protections of the Patient’s Rights Act.
The trial court’s second order mandates that the commonwealth provide detainees with adequate treatment in a facility which complies with the requirements of the Patient’s Rights Act and the Criminal Commitment Act.
“Because of the trial court’s orders relating to the (Patient’s Rights Act) and the (Criminal Commitment Act) arose in the context of Sibetang’s criminal prosecution, we find that the commonwealth has no right to appeal in this case,” according to the high court’s opinion penned by Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro and concurred by Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan and Justice Pro Tempore Juan T. Lizama.
The justices said the government’s challenge to the issue should have been raised through a motion to dismiss. Ideally, the justices said, such a motion would have been made soon after the commonwealth filed its appeal, “sparing the parties and the high court from expending considerable human and financial resources on an untenable petition.”
Court records showed that Sibetang was arrested in March 2000 on various charges, including first degree murder. He was held without bail in the Division of Corrections’ central male detention facility.
Sibetang, through then counsel Robert T. Torres, alleged that the detention did not comport with the Patient’s Rights Act and the Criminal Commitment Act. He asked that he be treated at the psychiatric ward of the Commonwealth Health Center.
But the government, through Assistant Attorney General James Benedetto, argued that CHC was insufficiently secure to protect the community from Sibetang.
The government added that the Patient’s Rights Act applies only to involuntary civil commitments, and not to persons properly detained in a correctional facility.
In May 2000, the trial court denied Sibetang’s motion, but found that the defendant was entitled to the specific rights and protections accorded by the Patient’s Rights Act and the Criminal Commitment Act.
Sibetang then moved for an emergency protective order precluding his transfer to CHC and compelling the commonwealth to provide him with adequate treatment pursuant to the law.
In June 2000, the trial court ordered the government to certify within 14 days that Sibetang was being detained in a facility comporting with the requirements of the Criminal Commitment Act, and that he was being treated under an individualized written plan pursuant to the Patient’s Rights Act.
The commonwealth then filed its notice of appeal and petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay of the trial court’s orders.
The high court granted the stay solely with respect to the perceived requirement that the government modify, renovate or reconfigure an existing facility for Sibetang.
The justices in their decision issued on Thursday ruled that under the Commonwealth Code, the government has a right to appeal “in a criminal case only when a written enactment intended to have the force and effect of law has been held invalid.”
The commonwealth does not claim that any law has been invalidated, the justices said.
According to the justices, the government contends that the appeal does not fall under the Commonwealth Code because the disputed issue bears no relation to the adjudication of Sibetang’s guilty.
The commonwealth said the appeal concerns the interpretation of the Patient’s Rights Act, “which is civil in nature.”
However, the justices said, the law makes no such distinction. The matter clearly arises “in a criminal case” and thus “is squarely within the ambit of the provision in the Commonwealth Code.”
Last January, the lower court sentenced Sibetang to 15 years imprisonment for the murder of a man on Capitol Hill two years ago.
The court ordered that while in jail Sibetang’s mental state should be evaluated every 90 days.
