Guam’s Barcinas to handle Torres’ case

Arthur Barcinas

The CNMI Supreme Court has designated Guam Superior Court judge Arthur Barcinas to serve as judge pro tem in Attorney General Edward Manibusan’s pending criminal suit against former governor Ralph DLG Torres.

CNMI Supreme Court Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro issued an order yesterday appointing Barcinas to preside over Torres’ pending jury trial, which is scheduled to start on June 5, 2023.

Barcinas’ designation come a week after Guam judge Alberto Tolentino officially recused himself from the pending criminal case due to health issues.

The CNMI Judiciary has been forced to seek the assistance o the Guam Judiciary in this matter after all Superior Court judges recused themselves from this case.

In his order, Castro stated that the parties in this case may notify the Clerk of the Superior Court of any reason Barcinas should not serve as judge pro tem

“Parties shall notify the Clerk of the Superior Court in writing no later than 10 days from the date of this order of any good cause or reason why Judge Barcinas should not serve as judge pro tempore. Unless good cause be shown otherwise, judge Barcinas shall have full authority to serve in this matter and shall carry out the duties and power inherent with the appointment,” said Castro.

Last April 19, Tolentino issued what’s referred to as a sua sponte order recusing himself. He did not elaborate but noted that the recusal is due to ongoing health issues.

Tolentino’s recusal left the Torres case without a judge once again as Tolentino was only appointed by the Supreme Court because all of the CNMI’s judges have recused themselves from hearing the case almost immediately after it was filed.

The Office of the Attorney General has charged Torres with 12 counts of misconduct in public office and one count of theft relating to the issuance of airline tickets for business class, first class, or other premium class travel for himself and/or his wife.

A little over a week prior to Tolentino’s recusal, Torres’ defense team filed two motions for reconsideration: a reconsideration of the court’s previous decision to deny dismissal of the case, and reconsideration of the court’s decision denying the team’s request to disqualify the OAG from prosecuting this case.

The prosecution has filed two separate motions opposing both motions.