Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Restitution Order topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Guam Superior Court denies $3,485.40 restitution request, orders $273.78 in People v. Diaz
Summary
The Superior Court of Guam denied the People’s request for $3,485.40 in restitution for vehicle damage and ordered defendant Keone James Perez Diaz to pay $273.78 after finding the People did not meet the preponderance standard for the larger amount.
The Superior Court of Guam on Aug. 25, 2025, denied the People of Guam’s request for $3,485.40 in restitution for vehicle damage and ordered defendant Keone James Perez Diaz to pay $273.78 to the victim, Monica Medina.
The ruling follows a restitution hearing held May 15, 2025, before Hon. Alberto E. Tolentino. The People had filed a Restitution Summary Report on Jan. 4, 2022, seeking $3,485.40 for damage to a 2014 Jeep Compass owned by Medina. The court found that, based on the Magistrate’s Complaint and testimony at the hearing, the People did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Medina suffered the larger loss attributed to the defendant’s conduct.
In her testimony, Monica Medina described dents to the vehicle’s hood, alleged damage to the dashboard and shift components, and a passenger-side mirror that she said was broken and temporarily affixed with tape. Medina also testified that she had not filed an insurance claim because she could not afford a $1,500 deductible and would have faced an increase in her insurance premium.
Defense counsel pressed that the repair invoice attached to the Magistrate’s Complaint and the parties’ stipulated factual basis only quantified damage to the driver-side mirror. The defense identified a specific repair cost of $273.78 for the mirror and argued the court should order that amount as restitution.
The court reviewed the Magistrate’s Complaint, which described a shattered driver-side view mirror, and compared it to the repair estimate in the Restitution Summary Report, which listed multiple parts and a consolidated labor cost. Citing 9 GCA § 80.50 and relevant authority on the People’s burden to prove loss by a preponderance of the evidence, the court concluded the record did not support the $3,485.40 figure. The court therefore denied the People’s restitution request in that amount and ordered restitution of $273.78.
The case numbers are CF0331-21 and CM0100-22; the charges to which Diaz entered a global plea on Nov. 8, 2023, included criminal mischief (third-degree felony), family violence (misdemeanor), three counts of violation of a court order (misdemeanor), and criminal trespass (misdemeanor). The incidents underlying the charges occurred between Feb. 16, 2020, and Mar. 24, 2022. The court’s written Decision & Order cites 9 GCA § 80.50 and precedent including People v. Mallo, 2008 Guam 23, and United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546 (9th Cir.).
The Decision & Order was signed by Hon. Alberto E. Tolentino and entered as the court’s disposition of the People’s Restitution Summary Report.
