Justices affirm 30-year sentence of child sex abuser

The CNMI Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence of a man who was ordered to spend 30 years in prison for sexually abusing an underaged girl.

The justices ruled that Juan B. Camacho’s failure to submit a trial transcript as part of his excerpts of record both undermines his claims and hinders their ability to review the evidence presented at trial.

“Therefore, we will not disturb the trial court’s findings as to the sufficiency of the evidence, the admittance of the handwritten notations on the desk calendar, or its denial of Camacho’s motion for acquittal,” said the high court opinion issued Tuesday by Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan and Associate Justices Alexandro C. Castro and John A. Manglona.

The justices determined that Superior Court associate judge David A. Wiseman did not err in imposing Camacho’s prison sentence, “as it was not inhumane, cruel, or detrimental to the interest of justice.”

In November 2006, Wiseman ordered the then 57-year-old Camacho to spend 30 years in jail for sexually abusing a then 12-year-old girl twice in 2004.

In September 2006, the jury found the defendant guilty on two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. The jurors acquitted him on two count of kidnapping.

Wiseman also convicted Camacho on two counts of disturbing the peace.

Camacho, through lawyer Brien Sers Nicholas, asked that his sentence be reduced. Wiseman denied the motion.

Without the assistance of a lawyer, Camacho then filed a motion for habeas corpus. He moved to disqualify Wiseman from hearing the petition, He claimed that he was wrongly convicted and cruelly sentenced by a “kangaroo court.” The defendant later requested to dismiss his petition.

In May 2008, Wiseman admonished Camacho for calling the court “kangaroo.” The judge denied the motion for disqualification.

Camacho, through Nicholas, appealed to the CNMI Supreme Court. Then assistant attorney general Joseph L.G. Taijeron Jr. argued for the government.

Camacho argued that there is insufficient evidence of sexual penetration to support his conviction of sexual abuse of a minor.

The defendant also argued that Wiseman made a mistake in admitting the handwriting on the desk calendar. He claimed the notations on the calendar were irrelevant.

According to court records, the calendar on Camacho’s desk contained a handwritten notation that stated he made love to the girl on July 12 and 13 in 2004.

On appeal, Camacho further argued that Wiseman improperly denied his motion for acquittal.

In addition, the defendant said the Commonwealth Code does not include a mandatory minimum eight-year sentence, and that the trial court’s sentence should be set aside due to his age, physical handicap, and lack of criminal history.

With respect to the insufficiency of evidence issue, the justices said Camacho’s failure to “present the entire transcript” made it “extremely difficult, if not impossible, for him to meet his burden of convincing this court…that the trier of fact lacked sufficient evidence to convict him.”

Despite Camacho’s failure to submit a trial transcript, the justices said it is important to note that even if they accepted his version of the evidence presented at trial as true, there is still sufficient evidence to support his convictions for sexual abuse of a minor.

“The jury found the girl’s allegations to be credible, and Camacho presents no facts indicating that the girl’s allegations are implausible. Thus, even if we accepted Camacho’s version of the evidence presented at trial as true, there is still sufficient evidence to support his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor,” the justices said.

On the handwritten notation issue, the justices said having failed to submit a trial transcript, Camacho failed to meet his burden of showing that Wiseman abused his discretion in admitting the handwritten notations on the calendar.

“We, therefore, must presume that sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s authentication of the handwriting,” they pointed out.