High Court denies rehearing of murder case

The CNMI Supreme Court has denied a defendant’s petition for the rehearing of a murder case due to the participation of associate justice John Manglona, maintaining that the High Court followed proper procedures.

In a May 27 order, the Supreme Court said that defendant-appellant Eugene Repeki Jr., et. al, “misinterpreted the CNMI Constitution and applicable Commonwealth Code sections and rests his argument on the untenable grounds that recusal is mandatory without regard for the interests of justice or the discretion of the justice.”

The appellant had argued that his rights were violated by the signing of an opinion by two of the three justices that comprised the panel.

These included Justices Alexandro Castro, Pedro M. Atalig (pro tempore),and Manglona.

Chief Justice Miguel Demapan recused himself from the case and designated Atalig as justice pro tempore for the appeal, which was filed in June 2002.

Manglona abstained from signing the opinion, which was released in January 2003, two months after his spouse, Ramona V. Manglona, was appointed attorney general.

The appellant asked for a rehearing of the case on the argument that Justice Manglona improperly abstained from signing the opinion, and that such action is in direct violation of the Constitution and the Commonwealth Code.

Repeki, who was imposed a 30-year jail term, appealed the decision on May 31, 2001.

Oral arguments took place in June 2002, and in July 2002, Demapan recused himself from the case, leaving the two associate justices and Atalig to handle the case.

In Nov. 2002, associate justice Manglona’s wife, Ramona was sworn in as attorney general.

On Jan. 14, 2003, the High Court issued its opinion, which was signed only by Castro and Atalig.

On Jan. 28, Repeki filed a petition for a rehearing.

In the May 27 decision, signed by Manglona, Atalig, and Castro, the High Court said it is clear that the Commonwealth Constitution and statutory scheme require at least three justices to hear and determine an appeal.

“Here, three justices heard and determined the appeal so there is no violation of the constitutional mandate,” they said.

Further, they said that the statutory requirement that a concurrence of two justices is necessary to establish a majority opinion was met as Castro and Atalig were in agreement.

They also said that the Commonwealth Code states that a judge or justice shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.

Also, the Code provides that a justice shall disqualify himself when his spouse is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding, or his spouse has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

“Simply put, Justice Manglona did not disqualify himself because he believed that his impartiality could not be reasonably questioned based on the fact that his spouse became attorney general after oral arguments concluded. Further, the decision whether a judge’s impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’ is to be made in light of the facts as they exist, and not as they are surmised or reported to be,” the decision said.

The court said that justice Manglona’s participation in the case happened before Nov. 2002 when his spouse became the attorney general.

As attorney general, she was responsible for providing legal advise to the governor and the executive departments, representing the CNMI in all legal matters, and prosecuting violations of the Commonwealth law.

The appellant had argued that since Justice Manglona is married to the attorney general, he should have immediately recused himself from ‘reconsidering, in any capacity, all cases in which the Commonwealth is a party represented by the AGO, including his case.

The High Court said that what the appellant failed to note was the rules are applied prospectively using a reasonableness standard and that Justice Manglona did not recuse himself because he both heard and determined the case as a member of the panel prior to the swearing in of attorney general Manglona.

The court said that the Attorney General’s Office normally takes no other action until the opinion is issued.

Further, the court said that recusal was not warranted because attorney general Manglona did not work on the appelant’s trial in the lower court or in preparation for the appeal.

“For Justice Manglona to recuse himself retroactively, as appellant demands here, in a case that was complete but for the issuance of the written opinion, would do a disservice to the Commonwealth as the judicial resources invested in the case to that point would be lost,” the ruling said.

But to be clear, it said that a justice should not hesitate to recuse himself or herself simply because time and effort have been expended.

Further, the court noted that the appellant did not file a motion to disqualify justice Manglona in the two months between attorney general Manglona’s swearing-in and the High Court’s issuance of the opinion.

Repeki was found guilty in December 2000 of murder in the second degree in connection with the slaying of a 40-year-old contract worker, a security guard at a commercial building in Chalan Kanoa in 1999.

Police investigation said the Repeki was one of the three men who took turns hitting the victim with a two-feet ashtray that fractured the victim’s skull.