Court rejects Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration in BOOST case

The NMI Superior Court has denied Shayne Blanco Villanueva’s latest attempt to dismiss the charges against him in an order issued by NMI Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja last Friday.

The ruling denying Villanueva’s motion for reconsideration related to his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination was in connection with his role in the Building Optimism, Opportunities, and Stability Program program, an initiative under scrutiny for alleged misuse of public funds.

Villanueva, a former BOOST program manager and political associate of former governor Ralph DLG Torres, argued that his initial motion should be reconsidered on two grounds—that the court’s use of the term “investigation” constituted clear error and that new email evidence indicated he was under investigation prior to his court appearance in March. The court, however, found these arguments insufficient to alter the previous ruling. Naraja emphasized that Villanueva’s motion, filed last Sept. 13, exceeded the 10-day limit mandated by court rules, making it untimely and beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

“Defendant’s motion for reconsideration was not filed until Sept. 13, 2024—15 days after the entry of the challenged Order,” the judge noted in the decision, emphasizing that the ten-day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional.”

In his argument, Villanueva pointed to the court’s use of the term “investigation” as grounds for clear error. He contended that he was, in fact, the subject of a legislative investigation and thus warranted Fifth Amendment protections. However, Naraja clarified that the court’s reference to “investigation” specifically applied to the Special Committee on Federal Assistance and Disaster-Related Funding, which led to Villanueva’s involvement as a witness. This context, Naraja explained, did not suggest Villanueva himself was under criminal investigation by that committee, rendering his claim of clear error without basis.

“Defendant is not even the subject of this investigation,” Naraja stated, referring to Villanueva’s role as a witness in the legislative committee rather than as a direct target.

Further, Villanueva argued that emails exchanged between counsels earlier in the year should be considered new evidence, as they indicated he was informed of a potential investigation against him before his March appearance. Naraja, however, dismissed these emails as valid grounds for reconsideration, stating that they did not meet the criteria for new evidence. The emails were available to Villanueva’s counsel before the original motion to dismiss was filed, thus failing to qualify as “newly discovered” under legal standards.

“Defendant’s actions do not meet [the] standard” of due diligence, the judge wrote. He underscored that Villanueva’s legal team had ample time to present these emails in the original filing and during the three months leading up to the court’s initial decision. Naraja expressed frustration over the delays and stressed that such conduct “falls far short of the due diligence expected from a party seeking to satisfy legal requirements”.

The ruling also touched on unprofessional conduct observed between opposing counsels, with Naraja expressing disappointment over “personal attacks” that diverted attention from core legal matters. He warned that further misconduct could lead to sanctions.