Indictment vs Villagomez found sufficient

The federal court has determined that the indictment filed against Lt. Gov. Timothy P. Villagomez and his co-defendants “is sufficient.”

In denying Villagomez’s motion for a bill of particulars, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Alex R. Munson also rejected the defendants’ request for specific facts regarding which CNMI procurement laws and federal regulations were violated by the allegations.

Munson said Villagomez and co-defendants James A. Santos and Joaquina V. Santos are not charged with violation of CNMI procurement or federal regulations.

Moreover, the judge said, violation of specific CNMI procurement regulations or specific federal regulations are not elements of the charges that were brought in the first superseding indictment.

“Therefore, the requested facts are not necessary to inform defendants of the charges against them, to enable them to plead an acquittal or conviction to bar future prosecutions for the same offenses, or to unambiguously set forth all elements necessary to constitute the offenses,” Munson added.

The indictment charged Villagomez and the Santos couple with bribery concerning a program receiving federal funds, conspiracy to defraud and to commit offenses against the U.S., wire fraud, and theft concerning a program receiving federal funds.

The new indictment alleged that Villagomez accepted a $15,000 bribe from the Santos couple for approving the purchase of Rydlyme, a cleaning and de-scaling chemical, for the Commonwealth Utilities Corp. The couple was also charged with bribery for allegedly offering the $15,000 to Villagomez.

The three pleaded not guilty.

Villagomez had filed a motion for a bill of particulars through counsel David J. Lujan, arguing that the bribery charges were based on conjecture and speculations by the U.S. government.

Lujan said the U.S. government alleging that Villagomez received two checks and making the “giant leap in logic” that it constitutes bribery places him in an impossible situation in preparing his defense.

The Santos couple joined in Villagomez’s motion.

In the U.S. government’s response, Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric O’Malley insisted that the two charges in the new indictment against Villagomez and the Santos couple sufficiently described the offense of bribery filed against them.

O’Malley pointed out that the sufficiency of an indictment is not determined by whether it can be more definite or certain.

O’Malley said a bill of particulars is not needed if an indictment provides detail sufficient to inform the defendants of the charges against them and full discovery of evidence has been provided.

Bill of particulars refers to a list of written statements made by a party to a court proceeding, upon demand of the other party. The list itemizes details of a claim or defense.

Munson found that the first superseding indictment sufficiently alleges counts four and five, charging the defendants with bribery concerning a program receiving federal funds.

Accordingly, the judge said, a bill of particulars is not necessary.

Munson has also denied all previous motions filed by Villagomez and his co-defendants.