In a 10-page decision, Associate Judge Ramona V. Manglona said 51-year-old Roger S. Castillo failed to provide any evidence that the criminal proceedings were tainted by any action or statement by a family court judge.
Castillo was provided assistance of a counsel throughout the criminal proceedings, the judge said.
His bench trial was held on March 25, 2008 before then-Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama.
Castillo was charged with two counts of stalking in the first degree, one count of theft, and three counts of violating an order for protection for incidents that occurred on June 15-16, 2007.
Lizama found the defendant guilty of both counts of stalking, both counts of disturbing the peace and all three counts of violating an order for protection.
But he found the defendant not guilty of theft.
Lizama also concluded that the two counts of stalking and disturbing the peace merged so that the defendant was subjected only to punishment for only one count for each crime.
A sentencing hearing was scheduled for June 11, 2008 but prior to the sentencing, Lizama retired from the bench.
The defendant then filed his motion to vacate conviction based on a claim of double jeopardy.
But Castillo’s motion was untimely under the Commonwealth’s Rules of Criminal Procedure and his claim was waived.
He was tried in an order to show case on July 3, 2007 in the Family Court before another judge for the same crimes for which Castillo was charged and ultimately convicted. The Family Court has not issued a decision because the matter was taken under advisement.
The court states that the defendant still faces the possibility of being found in contempt of court and sentenced to a term of six months imprisonment, a fine of $100, or both.
According to the court, double jeopardy clause protects against three types of abuses — a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and multiple punishment for the same offense.
Castillo argued that the hearing in the Family Court for violating a protection order was criminal in nature, and that the proceeding bars the commonwealth from filing any subsequent criminal prosecutions in the same acts.
But the court disagreed to set aside the bench trial and vacate the verdict for all the criminal convictions.
The court further denied the defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction of stalking in the first degree for a double jeopardy violation.
Castilo noted that the judge in the Family Court went on a tirade saying that he, the defendant, should go home to the Philippines because he was a problem in the CNMI.
Manglona said all of the defendant’s constitutional rights to a fair trial were satisfied.
Castillo was charged when he went to the victim’s house and workplace and harassed her and their children several times in 2007.
