U.S. v. Vega Figueroa

• Decision Date: 17 October 1997
• Docket Number: No.Crim. 97-072(SEC).,Crim. 97-072(SEC).
• Citation: 984 F.Supp. 71
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jose VEGA FIGUEROA (# 1) a/k/a Pito Casco, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

984 F.Supp. 71

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jose VEGA FIGUEROA (# 1) a/k/a Pito Casco, Defendant.

No.Crim. 97-072(SEC).

United States District Court, D.Puerto Rico.

October 17, 1997.

Jacabeth Rodriguez, Asst. U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, PR, for Plaintiff.

Alberic Prados-Bou, Caguas, PR, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

CASELLAS, District Judge.

The question before the Court is not one of first impression. Defendant is basically asking us to revisit the issue of whether Puerto Rico and the United States are "dual sovereigns" for purposes of the United States Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause (Docket # 124).¹ For the reasons stated below, we hereby decline his invitation to do so.

Procedural Background

Three years ago, defendant, José Vega Figueroa, was charged with the commission of ten offenses in the Superior Court of Carolina, Puerto Rico. The charges against him included unlawful possession, use, and transportation of the following firearms: (1) an AK-47 rifle; (2) a 9mm. caliber pistol; (3) a .357 magnum; and (4) a .38 caliber revolver; and (5) a .45 caliber pistol. They also included two counts of murder in the first degree for the murders of Reynaldo Colón-Figueroa a/k/a "Rey" and Melvin Flores-Montalvo; and the attempted murders of Ramón Santiago-Casiano and Angel Ramos-Rivera.

On October 11, 1995, Vega was acquitted of all these charges. Almost two years later, however, a federal grand jury charged him with knowingly and intentionally using and carrying the foregoing firearms. It further charged him with ordering and/or undertaking the murder of Reynaldo Colón-González a/k/a "Rey", Melvin Flores-Montalvo, Angel Ramos-Rivera a/k/a "Yauco", Ramón Santiago-Casiano a/k/a "Degollao", Pedro Santiago-Vega, and Wilfredo Cruz a/k/a "Galopa".

Defendant contends that he is being charged with the commission of essentially the same crimes for which he was acquitted in 1995, and that this Court should thus dismiss Count Three of his indictment— which pertains to the possession and use of these firearms—on double jeopardy grounds. He also maintains that the Court should dismiss paragraphs five, six, and seven of the subsection which refer to "overt acts", on collateral estoppel grounds.

Defendant acknowledges that it is a well established criminal law principle that successive prosecutions for the same unlawful act do not violate the United States Constitution when they are brought under the laws of separate sovereigns. He maintains, however, that Puerto Rico is neither a state nor a sovereign nation, and that the preceding principle cannot, therefore, apply to the instant controversy.

To support his contention, defendant argues that when Congress enacted Public Law 600, 64 Stat. 319 (1950)—the act which lay the groundwork for the Island's current political and constitutional status—it merely meant to allow the people of Puerto Rico a certain degree of self government in local affairs. The measure was not, according to him, meant to change Puerto Rico's fundamental relationship to the United States. Defendant further asserts that acts of Congress do not need to bind future Congresses, and that both the judicial and the legislative branches have recently recognized that Congress may treat Puerto Rico differently from the fifty states—to the extent that it may even unilaterally repeal the Island's Constitution and replace it with the rules and regulations it deems appropriate—because the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is, and has always been, an unincorporated territory.² As to the conspiracy-related counts, defendant maintains that the collateral estoppel doctrine bars their prosecution because in order to prove Count Three of the indictment, the Government must bring forth proof of the overt acts for which defendant was already acquitted.

In response to the foregoing arguments, the Government contends that the First Circuit has clearly established that Puerto Rico is a sovereign for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that this district is bound by such a holding.³ In the alternative, plaintiff argues that no double jeopardy may be found in cases such as this one, where the instant statutory offense requires that the Government prove a fact which was not required of the previous offense. Finally, the Government contends that the non-mutual collateral estoppel doctrine does not apply to this controversy because the overt acts to which Vega refers are not essential in drug conspiracy cases, and, more importantly, because the ultimate issues pending before this Court were not before the local jury.

Applicable Law/Analysis

Prosecuting entities are considered to be separate for double jeopardy purposes when they derive their power from different sources. It is well settled that when states enact and enforce their own criminal laws, they are acting pursuant to their own sovereign power, not that of the national government. Puerto Rico's status is not that of a state in the federal union, but its criminal laws, like those of a state, emanate from a different source than the federal laws.

Defendant's contention is that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is, constitutionally, still a territory of the United States, and that it lacks that separate sovereignty which would allow the federal prosecution in this case to continue. Thus, defendant questions the very nature of the present constitutional status of Puerto Rico.⁴

Since 1953, it is well settled law in this Circuit that, with the advent of Commonwealth status in 1952, Puerto Rico ceased being a territory of the United States subject to the plenary powers of Congress as provided in the Federal Constitution.⁵ Thereafter, the authority exercised by the federal government emanated from the compact entered into between the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress of the United States. As Judge Magruder stated in Mora v. Mejias, 206 Fed.2d 377, 386 (1st Cir.1953), referring to the new Commonwealth: "It is a political entity created by the act and with the consent of the people of Puerto Rico and joined in union with the United States of America under the terms of the compact ...".⁶

In 1956, Judge Magruder addressed the issue once again, in a case in which the contention was that there was only one sovereignty in Puerto Rico; that of the federal government. His response is best captured in the following paragraph:

"The answer to appellant's contention is that the Constitution of the Commonwealth is not just another Organic Act of the Congress. We find no reason to impute to the Congress the perpetration of such a monumental hoax. Public Law 600 offered to the people of Puerto Rico a `compact' under which, if the people accepted it, as they did, they were authorized to `organize a government pursuant to a constitution of their adoption'".

Figueroa v. People of Puerto Rico, 232 F.2d 615, 620 (1st Cir.1956).⁷

Neither has the United States Supreme Court remained silent on the status issue. The Supreme Court first addressed the subject in the 1974 case of Calero-Toledo v Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974), where, citing Judge Magruder's holding in Mora v. Mejias with approval, Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, acknowledged that:

[b]y 1950, ... pressures for greater autonomy led to [the] congressional enactment of Pub.L. 600, 64 Stat. 319, which offered the people of Puerto Rico a compact whereby they might establish a government under their own Constitution. Puerto Rico accepted the compact and on July 3, 1952, Congress approved, with minor amendments, a Constitution adopted by the Puerto Rico populace.

Id. at 671-72.

Two years later, in 1976, the Supreme Court in Examining Bd. of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 594, 96 S.Ct. 2264, 2277, 49 L.Ed.2d 65 (1976), and citing Calero-Toledo, stated that "the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with states of the union ...". It then went on to recognize: "We readily concede that Puerto Rico occupies a relationship to the United States that has no parallel in our history ...". Id. 426 U.S. at 596, 96 S.Ct. at 2278.⁸

It is important to note that defendant's specific contention—that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory⁹ of the United States and that no dual sovereignty exists between the United States and the Commonwealth — has for the past fifteen years been the subject of an uninterrupted and consistent line of First Circuit case law.¹⁰ In First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Puerto Rico v. Ruiz De Jesus, 644 F.2d 910 (1st Cir.1981), for example, Judge Campbell held that "Puerto Rico's territorial status ended, of course, in 1952. Thereafter it has been a Commonwealth with a particular status as framed in the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act." Id. at 911.

That same year, and upon reviewing the history leading up to the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Judge—now Justice—Breyer, concluded that [i]n sum, Puerto Rico's status changed from that of a mere territory to the unique status of Commonwealth. And the federal government's relations with Puerto Rico changed from being bounded merely by the territorial clause, and the rights of the people of Puerto Rico as United States citizens, to being bounded by the United States and Puerto Rico Constitutions, Public Law 600, the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act and the rights of the people of Puerto Rico as United States citizens. As the Supreme Court has written, the purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a state of the union. Examining Bd. of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 594, 96 S.Ct. 2264, 2277, 49 L.Ed.2d 65 (1976) ...

Cordova & Simonpietri Ins. Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N.A., 649 F.2d...