Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong, Associate Justice Lourdes F. Materne and Associate Justice Pro Tem C. Quay Polloi in an opinion order on Monday affirmed the trial court’s ruling in connection to the appeal of T-Night Adelbai.
Adelbai pleaded guilty to burglary and was sentenced to three years imprisonment but suspended except for the first 30 days.He was ordered to pay restitution in an amount to be determined by the Probation Office.A restitution hearing was set for April 7, 2008.The Probation Office on March 24, 2008 filed its restitution determination with the court and concluded in the report that the defendant was lying when he claimed that he did not take anything out of the bag.The Probation Office determined by preponderance of evidence and credible testimony of the victim that defendant owed restitution of $395.The defendant objected to the amount and requested for a hearing to address the newly released amount.At the restitution hearing on April 7, both of the prosecutor and the Probation Officer failed to appear. However, the hearing proceeded and the court accepted the restitution determination filed by the Probation Office as credible and ordered the defendant to pay the $395 restitution.The defendant filed an appeal and argued that the restitution determination filed by the Probation Office does not constitute properly admitted evidence and therefore, because no representative of the government attended the hearing, the government did not meet itsburden of proof on the amount of restitution.The defendant argued that the trial court could not accept the restitution determination on its own and that no restitution can be collected from him.The Supreme Court in affirming the trial court’s decision said, “the restitution determination of the Probation Office although it may contain hearsay is legitimate information for the trial court to consider in making its restitution order, with or without the presence of the Republic and the Probation Officer.”The Supreme Court said that the trial court was obligated to ‘make a clear and independent ruling’ on the record resolving appellant’s objections to the amount of restitution when the appellant objected to the probation officer’s determination of the amount of restitution owed.The Supreme Court said that the appellant was given opportunity to explain why he believed the probation officer’s determination was incorrect but the trial court was well within its discretion to conduct the hearing without the presence of the Republic or Probation Office.“The trial court did not err in accepting the Probation Office’s determination that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated appellant owed $395 in restitution,”the Supreme Court said in affirming the trial court’s decision.The appellant entered the house of Sophie Gibson in the early morning hours of September 14, 2007 and took her bag containing various items including Palauan money and jewelry.The appellant was arrested later and confessed to the burglary and returned the bag along with several items and signed a plea agreement where he pleaded guilty to burglary and agreed to pay restitution in an amount to be determined by the Probation Office.
