Law limits sexual abuse charges

By Shawn Raymundo
Pacific Daily News
May 23, 2016

http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/05/22/law-limits-sexual-abuse-charges/84640416/

Roy Quintanilla reacts to Deacon Tenorio's support of Archbishop Anthony Apuron on May 20. Photo by Mark Scott

Whether Roy Quintanilla does decide to take legal action against Archbishop Anthony Apuron for allegedly molesting the 52-year-old man 40 years ago, Guam’s laws on sexual abuse crimes could thwart any attempts to bring the matter to court.

According to Guam law, a person who was sexually abused as a minor has until three years from the time they reach 18 years old to bring the issue to the attorney general’s office to file criminal charges against the assailant. The statute of limitations kicks in after the victim has turned 21 years old.

Speaking to the media in front of the Archdiocese of Agana Chancery Office last Tuesday, Quintanilla spoke about the reported encounter with Apuron. Quintanilla said the alleged abuse happened when he was a 12-year-old altar server for Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Parish in Agat while Apuron was the parish priest.

Apuron also faced sexual abuse claims back in late 2014, when John C. Toves accused the archbishop of molesting his cousin. The cousin, however, never came forward to confirm the allegations, news files state.

Amid the nationwide controversy of sexual abuse allegations surrounding the Roman Catholic church, state legislatures around 2011 were similarly working to pass measures that would provide opportunities for sexual abuse victims to seek justice.

Acknowledging that such crimes are traumatic experiences for the victims, often causing them to remain silent about the incident for several years, Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz, D-Piti, introduced a pair of measures relative to removing the statute of limitations.

Lawmakers in early 2011 unanimously passed Cruz’s first bill, permanently abolishing the statute of limitations for sexual abuse crimes.

Because its effective date was after enactment, a person who was sexually abused as a child, but turned 21 years old before Gov. Eddie Calvo signed the bill into law on March 9, 2011, they were still limited by the previous statute of limitation on criminal cases.

The second measure, which lawmakers also passed, temporarily lifted the statute of limitations for two years so sexual abuse victims could file civil charges against their assailant. Abolishing the statute of limitations in the first measure removed the need to introduce “window legislation” every few years.

Pacific Daily News asked the attorney general’s office if there’s any legal action Quintanilla and his attorney David Lujan could take, but as of press time a response to such question had not been given.

While the attorney general’s office does handle criminal cases, an accuser filing civil charges would hire a private attorney to represent them, said Carlina Charfauros, spokeswoman for the attorney general.

However, Joshua Tenorio, administrator of the courts for the Judiciary of Guam, said he’s certain they didn’t get any civil filings for sexual abuse cases during the two-year window.

In the past week, rumors have come out of the Legislature that another “window measure” is being considered for sexual abuse crimes. Sen. Frank Blas Jr. confirmed those rumors to PDN, stating that for the past month several senators on both sides of the aisle have discussed the possibility of reintroducing such a bill.

“I believe that there has been some issues that have been raised and we want to see what has already been passed into law,” Blas said. “See what may be needed to strengthen it.”

Blas, whose staff currently is doing some research into “window legislation,” said he’s not sure if any senator plans to actually introduce a bill.

Lawmakers in 2011 had passed Cruz’s “window bill” in a 9-6 vote, but not before some of them gutted a key provision from the measure and tacked on “poison pill” amendments, Cruz has recently stated.

Cruz, a former Superior Court of Guam judge and former Supreme Court of Guam chief justice, said the additional amendments and removal of the “deep pockets” provision made it difficult for attorneys to want to take on such cases.

The key provision, or “deep pockets” provision, that Sen. Tony Ada, R-Sinajana, had removed from the bill would’ve allowed victims to seek damages from any “institution, agency, firm, business, corporation, or other public and private legal entity that owned a duty of care to the victim.”

To compromise on the measure, Cruz had included a separate provision — the “certificate of merit” provision — requiring an attorney to ensure the case had merit after consulting with at least one mental health practitioner who has knowledge of the relevant facts.

Based on the provision’s initial language, an attorney could have been liable for “unprofessional conduct” and “discipline” if part of the rules weren’t followed or violated. When lawmakers deliberated the measure in session back in February 2011, Sen. Blas amended the language so any violation automatically means an attorney would be disciplined.

Another provision in the bill already allowed for a person who was accused of sexual abuse to recover attorney’s fees if the court found the accusations against that person were false. Sen. Dennis Rodriguez Jr. had an amendment to allow such a person falsely accused to also collect damages.

“No attorney was going to bring action cause no one person had the money to pay,” Cruz said, adding: “We had two years where no one came forward.”

The vice speaker said certain senators made the amendments at the behest of Archbishop Apuron. Sens. Blas and Rodriguez last week denied Cruz’s claims. Sen. Ada has yet to respond to PDN’s request for comment.

Cruz has said he doesn’t plan to reintroduce the bill again because there could be a constitutional issue of constantly reopening statutes.

“I don’t want to be embarrassed that it’s going to be challenged constitutionally,” Cruz said. “I can’t keep opening and closing and opening again the statute.”