{"id":414896,"date":"2024-10-28T14:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-10-28T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/?p=414896"},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"-0001-11-29T14:00:00","slug":"Court-rejects-Villanueva-s-motion-for-reconsideration-in-BOOST-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/Court-rejects-Villanueva-s-motion-for-reconsideration-in-BOOST-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Court rejects Villanueva\u2019s motion for reconsideration in BOOST case"},"content":{"rendered":"

The NMI Superior Court has denied Shayne Blanco Villanueva\u2019s latest attempt to dismiss the charges against him in an order issued by NMI Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto C. Naraja last Friday.<\/p>\n

The ruling denying Villanueva\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2014that the court\u2019s use of the term \u201cinvestigation\u201d 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\u2019s motion, filed last Sept. 13, exceeded the 10-day limit mandated by court rules, making it untimely and beyond the court\u2019s jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

\u201cDefendant\u2019s motion for reconsideration was not filed until Sept. 13, 2024\u201415 days after the entry of the challenged Order,\u201d the judge noted in the decision, emphasizing that the ten-day deadline is \u201cmandatory and jurisdictional.\u201d<\/p>\n

In his argument, Villanueva pointed to the court\u2019s use of the term \u201cinvestigation\u201d 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\u2019s reference to \u201cinvestigation\u201d specifically applied to the Special Committee on Federal Assistance and Disaster-Related Funding, which led to Villanueva\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cDefendant is not even the subject of this investigation,\u201d Naraja stated, referring to Villanueva\u2019s role as a witness in the legislative committee rather than as a direct target.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s counsel before the original motion to dismiss was filed, thus failing to qualify as \u201cnewly discovered\u201d under legal standards.<\/p>\n

\u201cDefendant\u2019s actions do not meet [the] standard\u201d of due diligence, the judge wrote. He underscored that Villanueva\u2019s legal team had ample time to present these emails in the original filing and during the three months leading up to the court\u2019s initial decision. Naraja expressed frustration over the delays and stressed that such conduct \u201cfalls far short of the due diligence expected from a party seeking to satisfy legal requirements\u201d.<\/p>\n

The ruling also touched on unprofessional conduct observed between opposing counsels, with Naraja expressing disappointment over \u201cpersonal attacks\u201d that diverted attention from core legal matters. He warned that further misconduct could lead to sanctions.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Shayne Villanueva and his lawyer, Keith Chambers, as they leave Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Naraja\u2019s courtroom in this file photo.<\/p>\n

-KIMBERLY B. ESMORES
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The NMI Superior Court has denied Shayne Blanco Villanueva\u2019s latest attempt to dismiss the charges…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-414896","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-local-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/414896","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/31"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=414896"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/414896\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=414896"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=414896"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=414896"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}