THERE is not enough evidence to support the allegation against a beautician who was accused of sexually abusing an 8-year-old boy, Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho said.
After hearing the testimony of Detective Anthony Santos, Judge Camacho dismissed without prejudice the case against Christian Harys Santos Manuel, also known as Christy.
Without prejudice means that the case can be re-filed.
Judge Camacho, in his order of finding no probable cause, stated that “at its core, the only substantive information to the current allegations that was testified to in Court is: (1) allegation that fellatio may have happened sometime within the past six years.”
No other corroborating information is available at this time, the judge added.
To be clear, the judge said, the testimony from the detective raises reasonable suspicion that the allegation should be further investigated.
“However, reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause. Probable cause is required to make an arrest. The Government has the burden to show that probable cause exists that a crime has been committed and the defendant committed the crime,” the judge said.
“Therefore, there is reasonable suspicion to continue to conduct further investigation. The court dismisses the charges without prejudice, meaning that the government can bring charges if or when they are able to obtain more evidence,” he added.
The judge also vacated the arraignment set for June 27, 2022, at 9 a.m. before Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja.
Any bail, bond, passports/or other travel documents are hereby exonerated, Judge Camacho said.
It was alleged that Manuel, 36, downloaded pornographic videos on the minor’s tablet and made the boy watch them.
It was also alleged that the defendant told the boy to perform a sexual act and not tell anyone about it. In return, the defendant said he would buy the boy a brand new Nintendo game console.
Initially, Manuel, who works at a beauty salon, was charged with sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and disturbing the peace.
Later, the Office of the Attorney General amended the information and charged him with five counts of sexual abuse of a minor.
Sexual abuse of a minor is punishable by up to 30 years imprisonment and a $50,000 fine.
According to the testimony of the detective, “The allegations of fellatio may have occurred sometime within the past six years (when the child was between 4 to 6 years old); the male child is now 8 years old.”
The mother of the child is currently incarcerated at the Department of Corrections.
Also, the mother of the child has an adult boyfriend who was never interviewed by the police, Judge Camacho said.
When the mother was incarcerated in 2021, the child stayed with the mother’s boyfriend for several months before being taken in by an adult female guardian. Judge Camacho said there is no information about why the child had to be removed from the custody of the mother’s boyfriend and placed with the guardian.
The guardian has an adult son who also was not interviewed by the police about whether he has any information that can shed light on this matter, the judge added.
According to the guardian, the child said the defendant downloaded pornographic materials on the boy’s tablet.
But this could not be corroborated because the tablet was erased/cleaned by the guardian, Judge Camacho said, adding that the pornographic materials could have been used to establish a timeline.
“According to the guardian, the child said that defendant had the child perform fellatio.
“The child did not give any other details other than the vague allegation of fellatio. The police did not obtain any other details to at the very least make a physical collaboration such as but not limited to whether the defendant was uncircumcised/circumcised, birthmarks, tattoos, size or shape, etc.
“The police did not interview the mother’s boyfriend or the guardian’s adult son, or other possible witnesses.
“The police did not see the pornographic material, or even see and take the tablet into custody as evidence; no attempt was made to try to retrieve the data to corroborate any timeline.
“No medical or other scientific test was taken or conducted as part of the police investigation.
“When the police interviewed the mother at [Corrections] she said one time in the past, the child told her that defendant had touched his [privates]. She did not provide any other details.”
The defendant was not charged with that incident.
The court noted that this statement by the mother is inconsistent as the mother continued to use the defendant as a babysitter even after this alleged report of sexual contact.
