Attorney: Can church investigate fairly?, by Gaynor Dumat-Ol Daleno, Pacific Daily News (June 5, 2016)

The attorney for one of Archbishop Anthony Apuron’s accusers is questioning the Guam Catholic church’s ability to conduct an unbiased investigation into a child molestation allegation against Apuron.

Several church officials, speaking on behalf of the archbishop, have recently said Roy Quintanilla — the former Guam resident who recently accused Apuron of molesting him while Quintanilla was an altar boy in Agat 40 years ago — is spreading lies.

Apuron has released a videotaped message, denying Quintanilla’s allegations. Apuron has not been charged with any crime.

Quintanilla has publicly given a detailed account of how he was allegedly molested by Apuron during a sleepover at Apuron’s home when Quintanilla was 12.

Quintanilla’s attorney, David Lujan, in a letter Thursday to Deacon Larry Claros, the Archdiocese of Agana’s sexual abuse response coordinator, questioned the church investigation process and whether it can be fair.

“How in heaven’s name do you plan to investigate, or begin the investigation of, this very serious allegation after my client’s claim has been preempted by these press releases — characterizing in part my client’s claim as vicious, calumnious, and malicious — issued at the direction of your own boss?” Lujan asked.

Claros’ ability to be impartial was also questioned more than a year ago, when a former Guam resident, John Toves, publicly accused the archbishop of molesting Toves’ unnamed cousin decades ago, when the cousin was an altar boy in Agat, where Apuron was a parish priest.

In December 2014, shortly after Toves went to the archbishop’s office at the Chancery in a failed attempt to confront Apuron about the allegations, Claros said in an interview with the Pacific Daily News that Apuron is innocent “for sure.”

The archbishop’s representatives have threatened to sue following both allegations, but no lawsuit has been filed or has become publicly known as of press time.

In his letter to Claros, attorney Lujan asked: for the identity of the church investigator; Claros to clarify his own role in the investigation; and whether or not the church offers support services.

“You made no mention of his name,” Lujan wrote. “I am not about to have my client speak to someone without knowing the identity, qualification, and background of said investigator.”

“If you are the investigator, how will you be able to properly and objectively investigate such a serious allegation when the alleged perpetrator is your boss?” Lujan wrote.

Lujan’s letter also noted several instances in which church officials have disputed Quintanilla’s allegations.

An Archdiocese of Agana statement, sent by Father Edivaldo da Silva Oliveira, “has called my client a liar.”
The archbishop “has called my client a liar.”
The archdiocesan Chancellor, Father Adrian Cristobal, “has called my client a liar.”
Deacon Frank Tenorio, “a close and devoted supporter of the archbishop, has called my client a liar.”

It’s unclear if government authorities will conduct a criminal investigation into Quintanilla’s allegations.

Guam law states there’s no time limit for filing a criminal case on behalf of a victim of a sexual abuse if the victim was under 16 years old at the time of the alleged crime.

If a victim pursues a civil case, years after he or she was sexually abused as a child, the window to pursue the action is limited to three years after the victim becomes an adult, PDN files state.

However, Sen. Frank Blas Jr. recently proposed legislation that would lift any time limit on filing a civil lawsuits against alleged child molesters, a move that could cast Guam into a decades-old debate in the nation about the constitutionality of applying new laws to past crimes.

Blas’ Bill 326 states: “victims of child sexual abuse that occurred on Guam who have been barred from filing suit against their abusers by virtue of the expiration of the civil statute of limitations shall be permitted to file those claims in the Guam Superior Court.”

Guam lawmakers temporarily gave victims of child sexual abuse a two-year period, starting in 2011, to file a civil lawsuit, regardless of how far back the abuse has occurred, but that window has closed.