FORMER Gov. Ralph DLG Torres, through his defense team, has asked the Superior Court to quash the subpoena duces tecum requested by the Office of the Attorney General to obtain his Bank of Guam account records.
The subpoena duces tecum should be quashed as it is clearly for discovery purposes, the defense motion stated.
“In fact, the notice served on Mr. Torres states it is for investigative purposes…. The Commonwealth further does not contend or make any representation that the documents sought pursuant to the subpoena are evidentiary and relevant to trial in this case,” the defense team added.
A subpoena duces tecum requires a person to produce certain documents, records, or other tangible items in their possession, custody, or control.
On April 8, 2022, the CNMI Office of the Attorney General filed a criminal case against the former governor alleging 12 counts of misconduct in public office and one count of theft relating to the issuance of airline tickets for business class, first class, or other premium class travel for himself and/or Diann T. Torres, his wife.
The case also alleged one count of contempt for failure to appear in compliance with a legislative subpoena.
The former governor has denied the charges.
According to his attorneys —Viola Alepuyo, Victorino Torres, Matthew Holley and Anthony Aguon — the subpoena does not comply with the law.
Moreover, it lacks any showing that the requested documents are relevant to, or necessary to prove, any issue in the 13 counts currently pending in Commonwealth v. Torres, Crim. No. 22-0050, the defense motion stated.
It noted that the subpoena improperly directs the documents to be produced to the Office of the AG rather than the court.
“Additionally, the subpoena is not authorized by law as the special prosecutor’s appointment, contract, and admission status are invalid, which means the validity of the subpoena depends, upon other things, on the validity of the special prosecutor’s appointment, contract, and admission status. Until the validity of the special prosecutor’s appointment, contract, and status is resolved, the subpoena cannot be deemed to be authorized by law,” the defense team stated.
It added that the prosecution “is simply saying it wants to investigate [the former governor’s] expenditures because it wants to and not because it is related to any legitimate law enforcement inquiry.”
But “neither the subpoena nor the notice served on [the defendant] identifies a compelling governmental interest which justifies the intrusion into Mr. Torres’ confidential and private bank records,” his lawyers said.
“The failure to show a compelling governmental interest warrants quashing the subpoena for financial records and information…. Quashing the subpoena is also appropriate as it is not narrowly tailored. Mr. Torres is married, which makes the bank account subject to the subpoena marital property under Commonwealth law. The Commonwealth’s subpoena does not make any effort to protect Diann’s privacy interest in the marital bank account and, even more so, is not narrowly tailored to ‘weed out’ or preclude governmental intrusion into transactions related to Torres’ wife, family matters and other matters unrelated to whatever is the compelling governmental interest, if any.”
Case law establishes that a person’s bank account number is confidential, the defense motion added.
“The Commonwealth only acquired Mr. Torres’ Bank of Guam account number through the performance of official duties. Neither Mr. Torres nor the Bank of Guam gave written consent for the disclosure of the bank account number. The public disclosure, therefore, is unauthorized. This unauthorized public disclosure results from the prosecution’s failure to redact the bank account number as required by NMI R. Elec. Filing 2(b). The prosecution not redacting the bank account number in the filing with this court is not only unauthorized but is also a violation of the constitutional privacy right. These warrant quashing the subpoena,” the defense team stated.
The former governor’s jury trial currently scheduled for June 5 has been vacated by Judge Pro Tem Arthur Barcinas.
The previous trial date of June 5, at 9 a.m. will instead be used as a scheduling conference.
