High Court affirms Taisacan’s assault conviction

The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on assault and disturbing the peace charges against a man who was acquitted on felony charges by a jury.

The High Court affirmed Superior Court judge David Wiseman’s decision that found Neil Taisacan guilty of assault and battery and assault and disturbing the peace, ruling that the jury’s acquittal of Taisacan on felony charges did not constitute double jeopardy.

The United States and CNMI Constitutions prohibit double jeopardy and provide that no person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.

The jury had found Taisacan “not guilty” of attempted murder, armed robbery, theft assault with a dangerous weapon, unlawful carrying of a firearm, criminal use of a firearm, and illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition, among others.

Despite the jury’s verdict, Wiseman had convicted Taisacan on the misdemeanor charges, over which he has jurisdiction to rule. On Aug. 8, 2003, after a full-blown trial, the judge sentenced Taisacan to one-year imprisonment for assault and battery, six months for assault, and six months for disturbing the peace.

Taisacan appealed his conviction and sentence, saying that the double jeopardy provision was violated when the judge’s decision appeared to be in conflict with the jury’s decision. He also said that there was insufficient evidence against him.

Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan and Associate Justices Alexandro Castro ruled that the evidence at trial was sufficient to convict Taisacan, besides dismissing the appellant’s double jeopardy claim.

Penned by Demapan, the Supreme Court ruling said there was no double jeopardy issue in the case since Taisacan was only prosecuted once for each offense he was charged with.

“Taisacan was acquitted of felonies which have elements that differ from the misdemeanors he was convicted of, and since the jury was only asked to find Taisacan ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ of the offenses, it is impossible to determine what factual findings were made by the jury,” the Supreme Court said.

The High Court affirmed the trial judge’s independence on his determination on matters tried by him rather than before a jury.

It also ruled in favor of the sufficiency of evidence, saying that the victim, Yong Tae Song, positively identified Taisacan as one of the men who attacked him on Oct. 29, 2000. The victim also identified a revolver and a hat recovered as evidence as that of Taisacan.

Taisacan and his accomplices were charged for attacking and robbing Song, who operated the Marianas Washland laundromat in Chalan Kanoa.