The defense attorney for Department of Lands and Natural Resources Secretary Sylvan O. Igisomar urged the Superior Court last June 4 to dismiss three criminal charges against him, arguing that the government's amended charging document is legally deficient and fails to provide clear notice of what he must defend against.
During a motions hearing before Associate Judge Lillian Ada Tenorio, attorney Viola Alepuyo, representing Igisomar, argued that Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the First Amended Information should be dismissed because they omit essential legal elements, contain surplus language, and could confuse a jury. Special prosecutor Olga Kelley opposed the motion and maintained that the charging document is legally sufficient.
Alepuyo told the court that Count 1, misconduct in public office, fails to properly allege the required criminal intent, or mens rea, and improperly combines multiple legal theories into a single charge. She also argued that references to provisions of the Commonwealth Code dealing with Office of Public Auditor referrals and post-conviction employment bans are unnecessary and prejudicial.
Regarding Count 2, theft of services, Alepuyo argued that prosecutors are effectively charging the same alleged conduct twice because the theft allegation serves both as a standalone offense and as the underlying illegal act supporting the misconduct-in-public-office charge. She characterized that as an improper multiplicity problem.
For Count 3, child abuse or child endangerment, Alepuyo said the information fails to allege essential statutory elements, including that the children involved were minors and that any actual or threatened harm occurred. She argued that merely alleging Igisomar transported his children on a government boat without authorization does not constitute child abuse under CNMI law.
Alepuyo argued the charging document should be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged, further contending that the information does not meet that standard.
As an alternative to dismissal, the defense requested an evidentiary hearing on what it described as possible selective or arbitrary prosecution, arguing that similar alleged misuse of government property by public officials has not always resulted in criminal misconduct charges.
Kelley countered that the challenged references to OPA referral statutes and employment prohibitions are not separate crimes but merely provide notice of potential consequences if a defendant is convicted. She compared the language to sentencing-enhancement notices commonly included in charging documents in other jurisdictions.
Kelley also argued that the information adequately alleges criminal intent, pointing to language stating that Igisomar "knowingly diverted" government resources for personal use. She maintained that the misconduct and theft charges are separate offenses reflecting legislative intent to impose additional penalties when public officials commit crimes while acting in their official capacities.
Kelley acknowledged that the information did not expressly state that the children were underage, but argued that the government's theory was adequately conveyed through the charging document. She maintained that placing children aboard a government law-enforcement vessel without authorization exposed them to risk and supported the child-endangerment allegation.
Attorney Joaquin Torres, representing co-defendant Rosemary C. Camacho, joined portions of the defense challenge, arguing that references to OPA statutes are not elements of the charged offenses and could create unnecessary jury confusion. He also challenged one misconduct-in-public-office count against Camacho, arguing that prosecutors failed to identify the specific legal duty she allegedly neglected to perform.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Tenorio said she would take the motions under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date.
Prosecutors allege that on Sept. 28, 2024, Igisomar used a DLNR vehicle and a Division of Fish and Wildlife law-enforcement boat to transport himself and his two children between Saipan and Managaha Island. Those allegations form the basis of the misconduct in public office, theft of services, and child endangerment charges now before the court.
The defense emphasized that its motion does not address whether the alleged conduct occurred. Instead, it focuses on whether the government's charging document is legally sufficient and properly drafted under CNMI law.
Share this article
