VIDEO: Two Alleged Gang Members Accused in Dededo Assault

962
alt

Guam – Two alleged gang members are behind bars on $10,000 dollars cash bail each for the assault on four others in Dededo on Monday. They are 18-year-old Antonio Jay Untalan, Jr. and 20-year-old Ryan James Arnold, who is the reported gang leader. The suspects claim to be members of a gang called Ruckus.

Antonio Jay Untalan Jr and Ryan James Arnold appeared in court yesterday facing charges of aggravated assault with special allegations of use of a deadly weapon and criminal mischief. The two and 7 others are accused of attacking four victims at a residence in Dededo as part of gang violence. Dededo Mayor Melissa Savares telling PNC she was surprised to learn of the news.

“When I read the paper this morning, I was surprised because I don’t know of any gangs and the Dededo precinct is not aware of any gang related activities,” says Mayor Savares.

Police say the two along with two other men and five minors drove to a residence in Dededo and attacked four men with machetes, pipes and baseball bats.

One of the victims, Joseph Ryan Donato, was just visiting his friend when the attack began. Donato ran to his Honda Civic when police say several of the boys smashed his car with their weapons, which caused shards of glass to pierce Donato’s body.

Three other victims, identified as Charfauros brothers Christian, Lee and Luke were attacked with machetes. Lee Charfauros, according to police received a laceration on his back after one of the attackers swung a machete at him. “During the attack,” the report says, “all the males were yelling 501 and Ruckus.”

Police first apprehended Untalan who owned the gold Ford Ranger used in the attack. Untalan told police that Arnold is one of the gang leaders of the Ruckus gang.

But Mayor Savares says gang related activity is not a common cause for concern in her village.

“Now if these individuals calls themselves ‘ruckus’ or GHURA gangs, it’s probably just a group of kids because they’re from that area not something that’s created and they have many members,” she points out.

She adds: “Our office is not aware of any gang activities and like I said we will find out who’s involved and maybe work with the kids.”

At the GHURA 501 neighborhood in Dededo, some residents were reluctant to give information, while others said they’ve heard of the “ruckus” and “501” gangs in their neighborhood.

 

According to Judiciary Spokesman Josh Tenorio, Ryan Arnold is no stranger to the law. He has four other open cases including a criminal mischief case from 2011, a family violence case from last May for assaulting his girlfriend, a felony family violence case from 2012 for beating up his younger sister, and an aggravated assault just last December for attacking a police officer.

Meanwhile, Guam Police Spokesman Officer AJ Balajadia could not confirm that it was indeed gang related. He indicated that there was concern in highlighting gang affiliated individuals on Guam. However, he says the Criminal Justice Task Force is investigating the case further and GPD plans to increase patrols in the area.

Late this afternoon, in response to questions regarding Arnold’s release from prison despite pending felony cases, Tenorio says that Guam law requires every person charged with an offense released pending trial, unless the judge determines that such release will not endanger the safety of another person or the community.

Read his full statement below:

I have received a few requests to clarify the Guam law that guides Judge’s on pre-trial releases of defendants.
There is a STATUTORY REQUIREMENT that mandates a judge to release a defendant awaiting trial based on a consideration of factors.  Guam Law REQUIRES a order “every person charged with an offense …released pending trial and subject to conditions.”  See as follows:
8 GCA § 40.10: At his first appearance before a judge of the Superior Court, every person charged with an offense shall be ordered released pending trial in the manner and subject to the conditions provided by §§ 40.15 and 40.20.

8 GCA § 40.15. (b) The judge shall order the person charged to be released on recognizance, unless the judge determines, in his discretion, on the basis of available information, that such a release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community.

The Guam Supreme Court recognizes the judge’s statutory obligation to release a defendant: See People of Guam v. Song: 2011 Guam 19

A. Guam’s Bail Statute.

[10] Guam law requires that, at the first appearance of an accused, the judge “shall” release the accused pending trial subject to the provisions and conditions found in 8 GCA §§ 40.15 and 40.208 GCA § 40.10 (2005). The judge is required by law to order a person charged to be released on his own recognizance, “ unless the judge determines, in his discretion, on the basis of available information, that such a release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community.” 8 GCA § 40.15(b) (2005) (emphasis added). The statuteenumerates the considerations that may factor into a judge’s determination as to whether the accused poses a risk of non-appearance or a danger to any individual or to the community. 8 GCA § 40.15(c) (2005. Thejudge is mandated by law to release the accused under the least onerous condition or combination of conditions reasonably likely to assure the appearance of the accused as required and to ensure the safety of any other person and the community8 GCA § 40.20 (2005). Pursuant to the requirements and limitations set forth in 8 GCA §§ 40.5040.60, and 40.75, the court may modify bail conditions.
*4 [11] Determinations as to bail conditions and amounts are not to be driven by the goal of keeping the accused incarcerated, but should rather be reached in consideration of the only authorized interests, to wit, ensuring the appearance of the accused and the safety of othersSee 8 GCA §§ 40.10,40.1540.20see also Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951) (“Since the function of bail is limited, the fixing of bail for any individual defendant must be based upon standards relevant to the purpose of assuring the presence of that defendant.”).