The lower court’s instructions to the jury were “misleading, inconsistent and confusing” and failed to disprove Carl Gargarita’s claim that he acted in self-defense when he killed Anthony Giralao on the night of June 14, 2013.
Rendering a 2-1 verdict, the Supreme Court of Guam ordered last Sept. 17, a new trial for Gargarita after the justices overturned a manslaughter conviction by Superior Court Judge Maria Cenzon in August 2014.
“Although the jury was informed that the people bore the burden of disproving a justification defense, the trial court did not explicitly state that self-defense is a justification defense, leading to the distinct possibility that the jury failed to make the connection between a justification defense and self-defense,” the decision read.
Love triangle, police probers said, involving Gargarita, Giralao and Irene Alcovera, the victim’s ex-wife, led to the commission of the crime.
Acovera and Giralao, court records showed, had met and got married in the US mainland. They returned to Guam with their three children to work on their marriage, but when things didn’t work out, Acovera started dating Gargarita whom she had dated before settling down with Giralao.
The victim, investigators said, and his uncle rushed to the parking
area of Club G-Spot in Tumon on June 14, 2013 upon receiving a call from Gargarita to pick up his drunken girlfriend. When Giralao arrived, a fight broke out between the victim and the suspect with Gargarita putting Giralao in a chokehold after he was allegedly attacked by the victim.
Gargarita had apologized to the victim’s family after the lower court found him guilty of manslaughter and sentenced the defendant to 15 years in jail, with five years suspended.
Gargarita, who was initially charged with murder, appealed his case to the Supreme Court in September. In his appeal, Gargarita claimed the jury instructions given by the trial court on the issue of self-defense were inconsistent and misleading.
In April, the high court heard his appeal, in which attorney Leevin Camacho argued the instructions given to jurors by Judge Maria Cenzon weren’t clear.
Under Guam law, prosecutors must disprove a defendant’s claim of self-defense, rather than defendants having to justify their actions.
That means, said Camacho, that as long as a jury has reason to believe Gargarita’s actions were at all justifiable, they must acquit him./The Junction News Team
