Conviction of man in San Vicente fatal shooting affirmed

The CNMI Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the conviction of a defendant in connection with a fatal shooting of a man at a residence in San Vicente in 1999.

The high court upheld the judgment of a jury and a trial court judge that found Nestor Taitano guilty of involuntary manslaughter, illegal use of a firearm in the commission of involuntary manslaughter, and assault and battery.

“Although Taitano has a laundry list of problems with the way his trial preceded, they are unable to say that he did not receive a fair trial,” said the high tribunal’s judgment penned by Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro and concurred by Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan.

“Indeed, most of the errors he complains of were, in fact, not errors at all but proper legal decisions. We decline to substitute our judgment for the judgment of the judge and jury,” Castro and Demapan said.

Justice Pro Tem Pedro M. Atalig was a member of the appellate panel. Atalig passed away after the panel reached a decision in this case, but prior to its publication, according to the justices.

The justices said a jury of Taitano’s peers listened to an array of testimony, evaluated the evidence, determined the credibility of the witnesses, and rendered a verdict.

“Absent a showing of error we will not disturb those findings and determinations,” they said.

Court records show that Taitano and his brother George Manglona were charged in connection with the fatal gun shooting of Joaquin de la Cruz in San Vicente on May 4, 1999. The two were also charged over the kidnapping and beating of Lydia Sanchez Santos.

Manglona had already served a jail term after entering a plea agreement with the government.

Taitano during the trial claimed self-defense in pulling the trigger of a .22 rifle that killed de la Cruz. He also denied beating and abducting Lydia Santos from her house in Dandan.

In June 2001, the jury found Taitano not guilty to first and second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon (knife), assault with a dangerous weapon (firearm), aggravated assault and battery, and use of a firearm in the commission of assault with a dangerous weapon.

But the jurors found the then 23-year-old Taitano guilty to the charges of involuntary manslaughter and use of a firearm in commission of involuntary manslaughter.

Superior Court Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama also found Taitano guilty of assault and battery.

Taitano, through counsel Bruce Berline and Mark B. Hanson, appealed.

The defendant claimed there was insufficient evidence for a conviction of involuntary manslaughter and assault and battery and that Lizama allowed inadmissible hearsay into evidence. He said the trial court improperly admitted into evidence his 1993 burglary conviction.

Taitano cited that Lizama improperly prohibited him from introducing evidence of the prior bad acts of Dela Cruz and Antonio Santos, one of Dela Cruz’s companions at that time.

Taitano said the prosecutorial misconduct shifted the burden of proof on the element of self-defense and that Lizama failed to record sidebar conferences. He added that the cumulative effect of the errors precluded him from receiving a fair trial.

But the justices disagreed.

On the involuntary manslaughter judgment issue, the justices said the jury reviewed the evidence presented, evaluated credibility, and made a determination that there was no malice aforethought but that the killing was indeed unlawful.

“That decision produced a conviction for manslaughter, which was reasonable under the circumstances,” said the justices, adding that Taitano’s error claim has no merit.

On the assault and battery issue, the justices said the defendant’s argument violates Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 in that he fails to cite any authority in support of his contention.

Notwithstanding the fact that Taitano failed to follow the Appellate Rules of Procedure, this argument is groundless, they pointed out.

With respect to hearsay arguments, the justices determined that Lizama acted properly in admitting an exhibit that consisted of several chains of custody forms that were part of the crime scene investigation.

On the admission of a prior burglary conviction matter, the justices said Lizama did not abuse his discretion by admitting Taitano’s prior conviction for impeachment purposes.

On the admissibility of Dela Cruz’s and Antonio Santos’ prior violent acts, the justices said judge did not abuse its discretion.

The justices said Taitano has not provided the high court with case law supporting the proposition that the trial court should have introduced more evidence than it did.

Instead, they said, Taitano cites cases holding that, when arguing self-defense, the defendant should be allowed to introduce evidence of the victim(s) prior bad acts.

Regarding prosecutorial misconduct claims, the justices said because the prosecutor’s argument properly drew inferences from the evidence and merely responded to defendant’s testimony, Taitano defendant was not denied a fair trial.

On the sidebar conferences, the justices said Taitano makes no showing that he was prejudiced by the failure to report these sidebar conferences and that the high court’s record reflects none.

With respect to cumulative effect of errors claim, the justices said most of the errors cited are not, in fact, errors.

“Taitano was entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one and, after a careful review of the record; it is obvious that is what he received,” they added.