United States v. Perilla Umbarila
| Decision Date | 13 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. EDCV 19-2383-CJC (KK) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Hector Manuel PERILLA UMBARILA, a Fugitive from the Government of the Republic of Columbia. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
John J. Lulejian, AUSA - Office of US Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.
Angela C. C. Viramontes, Federal Public Defenders Office Riverside Office, Riverside, CA, for Hector Manuel Perilla Umbarila.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; ORDER CERTIFYING EXTRADITABILITY
The request of the United States of America for the issuance of an order certifying the extraditability of Hector Manuel Perilla Umbarila, also known as Hector Manuel Perilla Umbarilla, Hector Perilla, or Steven Bernal ("Perilla Umbarila"), came on regularly for hearing before the Court on December 14, 2021. Upon consideration of the evidence, in particular the certified and authenticated documents submitted by the Government of the Republic of Colombia,1 and the pleadings and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On the evening of October 5, 2009, Maria Cristina Umbarila de Bernal, also known as, "Maria Cristina Umbarilla de Bernal" ("Umbarila-Bernal"), was murdered in her apartment along with the building's security guard, Audon Martinez-Mendez ("Martinez-Mendez"). See ECF Docket No. ("Dkt.") 19-5 at 25, 35. Umbarila-Bernal had been hit in the head and stabbed in the neck, and a sock had been put in her mouth to prevent her from screaming. See id. at 35. Martinez-Mendez had been stabbed nine times in his neck, back, and upper extremities, and there were defense wounds on his hands and forearms. See id. Umbarila-Bernal's bedroom, where she had been killed, was in disarray. See id. at 35-36. Police discovered a smashed piggybank2 , emptied jewelry boxes, and an open wallet (or handbag). See id. at 25, 36. A nightstand drawer and closet appeared to have been rifled through. See id. at 36. However, there was no sign of a forced entry to Umbarila-Bernal's apartment. See id.
Colombian authorities began focusing on Perilla Umbarila, Umbarila-Bernal's nephew, as the perpetrator of these crimes. See id. at 37. The investigation revealed that after returning from the United States to Colombia to start a business, Perilla Umbarila lived with Umbarila-Bernal for approximately one year. See id. at 36-37, 43. At the time of the murders, Perilla Umbarila was living with his girlfriend. See id. at 36.
Perilla Umbarila's business in Colombia was not successful. See id. at 43. Therefore, he asked Umbarila-Bernal and other family members to lend him money. See id. Umbarila-Bernal, however, declined to financially support her nephew and advised him to move back to the United States, where he had a wife and children. See id. According to one of Umbarila-Bernal's daughters, her mother felt unsafe after telling Perilla Umbarila that she would not financially support him. See id. at 16, 18. Umbarila-Bernal decided to change the locks to prevent Perilla Umbarila from entering her apartment uninvited. See id.
Another one of Umbarila-Bernal's daughters, said that a week prior to the murders, Perilla Umbarila called his aunt and asked for a loan of money. See id. at 19. When Umbarila-Bernal refused to give him the loan, Perilla Umbarila reacted aggressively towards her. See id.
On the day of the murders, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Perilla Umbarila went to his aunt's apartment. See id. at 19, 36. One of Umbarila-Bernal's neighbors said she saw Perilla Umbarila enter the apartment building around 3:00 p.m. See id. at 15, 36. Perilla Umbarila admitted that he went to his aunt's apartment around 3:00 p.m. on the afternoon of the murders, but claimed he went there to help her recover from dental surgery. See id. at 17, 19.
At approximately 5:00 p.m., Umbarila-Bernal and one of her daughters spoke by telephone for approximately five minutes. See id. at 27, 36, 39. During this call, Umbarila-Bernal told her daughter that Perilla Umbarila was still at her apartment. See id. at 36, 39. Perilla Umbarila claimed he left the apartment around 5:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. See id. at 19.
Between approximately 5:30 p.m. and 5:35 p.m., a neighbor on the third floor of the apartment building heard shouts and noises coming from the second floor, where Umbarila-Bernal's apartment was located. See id. at 12, 27.
Between approximately 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., Perilla Umbarila returned home, where his girlfriend and another friend were present. See id. at 13, 17. Perilla Umbarila's girlfriend noticed he was wearing different clothes from the ones he had worn when he left their home that morning and was carrying a blue suitcase. See id. at 13, 36-37. When she asked him about the change of clothes, Perilla Umbarila told her that his original clothes were greasy from the machinery work he had performed earlier in the day, and therefore, he had changed at his aunt's apartment and left his other clothes for his aunt to wash. See id. at 13, 19, 22, 37. Because Perilla Umbarila's girlfriend washed his clothes daily, she was not satisfied with his explanation. See id. at 13. Law enforcement authorities were unable to locate the clothing that Perilla Umbarila claimed to have left at his aunt's home. See id. at 41.
Between approximately 7:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., Martinez-Mendez's wife came to the apartment building where her husband worked as a security guard and noticed that he was not at his post. See id. at 19, 38. When a neighbor reported seeing Perilla Umbarila at the apartment building that day, Martinez-Mendez's wife grew concerned because she knew Perilla Umbarila and her husband had argued before. See id. at 38. Using one of her husband's keys, she opened up Umbarila-Bernal's apartment and discovered Martinez-Mendez's body. See id. at 19, 38.
At approximately 9:05 p.m., a police officer, who had been called, went to Umbarila-Bernal's apartment and found Martinez-Mendez dead in the passageway. See id. at 12. The police officer also found Umbarila-Bernal dead in her bedroom, "curled up, with a white rag in her mouth, and a lot of blood." See id. In the bedroom, the police officer noticed a shattered piggybank and a wallet (or handbag) on the bed. See id.
Later that evening, Perilla Umbarila received a telephone call from his sister, who told him about what had happened at his aunt's home. See id. at 19. After that telephone call, between approximately 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., Perilla Umbarila left their house. See id. at 17, 19-20.
Shortly after Perilla Umbarila left their house, his girlfriend received a telephone call from Perilla Umbarila's co-worker, who said that Perilla Umbarila had killed Umbarila-Bernal and the security guard. See id. at 13. The co-worker asked Perilla Umbarila's girlfriend to see if Perilla Umbarila "was wearing clothing with blood on it or anything." See id. at 17. When Perilla Umbarila's girlfriend looked inside the blue suitcase that he brought home, she discovered items, including "some creams," "a spray," mobile telephones, and women's jewelry.3 See id. at 36.
When Perilla Umbarila returned home at approximately 5:00 a.m. the next morning, he told his girlfriend he had been falsely accused. See id. at 17. Perilla Umbarila said he had gone to his aunt's home to help her after her dental surgery and had left there without incident. See id. at 17, 19. According to Perilla Umbarila, it was not unusual for him to have changed clothes at his aunt's home and he kept spare clothes there because his work required him to operate heavy machinery. See id. at 19. With regard to the items in the blue suitcase, Perilla Umbarila claimed he had bought them at a good price with the intention to resell them for a profit. See id. at 17, 37.
Perilla Umbarila maintained he was not at Umbarila-Bernal's home at the time of the murders. See id. at 19. However, in contrast to his earlier explanation to his girlfriend, Perilla Umbarila said that he had been given the items in the suitcase by his aunt, who wanted him to sell the items so that he could afford to return to the United States. See id. at 13, 17-18. One of Umbarila-Bernal's daughters contradicted this and said the "creams and sprays" actually belonged to her and were due to be delivered to someone else who had asked for them. See id. at 42. In addition, the mobile telephone, which Perilla Umbarila claimed was also given to him by Umbarila-Bernal, was actually activated in the United States, and Umbarila-Bernal intended to use it there on an upcoming trip. See id.
Following Perilla Umbarila's arrest, he was tried in Colombia for the crimes of Aggravated Homicide, Homicide, and Robbery. See id. at 9-24. On September 27, 2010, the Second Circuit Criminal Court, Trials, in Bogotá, Colombia, acquitted Perilla Umbarila of these crimes. See id. The prosecutor appealed the acquittal. See id. at 25.
Perilla Umbarila did not participate in the appellate proceedings despite his obligation to do so. See id. at 29-30, 51. On March 29, 2011, the Superior Tribunal of the Judicial District of Bogota, Criminal Bench (the "Superior Tribunal") vacated the lower court's verdict and found Perilla Umbarila guilty of Aggravated Homicide, Homicide, and Robbery with Violence, in violation of Articles 103, 104.2, 239, 240.1, and 240.2 of the Colombian Criminal Code. See id. at 25-49. That same day, Justice Dagoberto Hernandez-Peña of the Superior Tribunal issued warrants for Perilla Umbarila's arrest. See dkt. 19-3 at 79-83.
On April 4, 2011, the Superior Tribunal read its judgment and sentenced Perilla Umbarila to a term of imprisonment of 600 months. See dkt. 19-5 at 52. The Superior Tribunal published its decision the following day. See id. at 25-49.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Bilic
...is primarily an executive responsibility with a specially-defined role for a judicial officer. E.g., United States v. Perilla Umbarila, 562 F.Supp.3d 729, 734 (C.D. Cal. 2022). “The power to extradite derives from the President's power to conduct foreign affairs.” Martin v. Warden, Atlanta ......