1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR 

PUERTO RICO

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, ET AL.

Debtor.

____________________________ 

Maria Judith Diaz Castro

PLAINTIFF

V.

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT 

AND MANAGEMENT BOARD 

FOR PUERTO RICO,

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO; JUAN J. COLON BAEZ; MARIO 

RIVERA GIEGEL, Esq; LUIS RIOS 

DIAZ, Esq.; LUIS NAVAS DE LEON, 

Esq.; LEILANY CARRION DEL TORO, 

Esq., Sergio Rubio Paredes, Esq., 

Emilio Aril Garcia, Esq., 

SHARON PLACERES SAENZ, John 

Does 1-10 

DEFENDANTS

 

PROMESA Title III

Case No.: 3:17-BK-3283 (LTS)

Adversary No. 22-00054-LTS

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT TO LIQUIDATE 

CLAIM AND/OR TO 

DETERMINE 

DISCHARGEABILITY OF 

DISPUTED UNLIQUIDATED 

CLAIM

And/Or Lifting the Automatic Stay

I. ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COMPLAINT

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

III. INTRODUCTION / MEDIA COVERAGE

IV. THE PARTIES TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT

V. FACTS: Plaintiff’s Wrongful Felony Conviction in 2003 & Over Ten 

Years of Unlawful Incarceration 

A. APRIL 1999 ROOSTER FIGHTING COMPETITION & DOUBLE HOMICIDE

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 32
2

B. INVESTIGATION BY LEAD DETECTIVE FIGUEROA: MULTIPLE 

EYEWITNESSES CREDIBLY IDENTIFY A PRIMARY SUSPECT; WITNESSES 

FEAR TESTIFYING OUT OF RETALIATION; REASSIGNMENT OF

INVESTIGATION TO DETECTIVE COLON BAEZ AND HIS TWO 

PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN PURPORTED WITNESSES

C. DETECTIVE FIGUEROA’S TESTIMONY AT THE 2003 TRIAL – PREVIOUSLY 

UNDISCLOSED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

D. THE COMMONWEALTH’S NEW SURPRISE WITNESS SHARON PLACERES

FALSELY ALLEGES, AT THE 2003 TRIAL, A PURPORTED CONSPIRACY 

INVOLVING PLAINTIFF; WITNESS YAHAIRA SOTO, WHO WOULD LATER 

RECANT, CORROBORATES THE TESTIMONY

VI. The APPEALS, HABEAS CORPUS, & POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

A. 2005 STATE COURT APPELLATE REVIEW AND FINDINGS

B. 2010 FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS

C. 2013 MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IN STATE COURT

D. LOWER COURT GRANTS NEW TRIAL IN 2015, FINDS VIOLATIONS OF 

PLAINTIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 

VII. 2016 RETRIAL – COMMONWEALTH WITNESS YAHIRA SOTO 

RECANTS, ALL CHARGES DROPPED 

VIII. CIPA ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS & LEAD DETECTIVE 

FIGUEROA’S AFFIDAVIT INCULPATING DEFENDANTS 

HEREIN; AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT COLON BAEZ

IX. PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT 42 USC §1983 CIVIL RIGHTS 

ACTION of 2016 & THE AUTOMATIC STAY

A. Causes of Action Averred

B. Filings in The District Court of Puerto Rico

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 32
3

C. Automatic Stay

X. THIS COURT’S RULING IN 2017 DENYING THE MOTION TO 

LIFT THE AUTOMATIC STAY, AND REQUIRING THAT THE 

CLAIM BE LIQUIDATED IN THIS FORUM

COUNT I - LIQUIDATION OF DISPUTED CLAIM

COUNT II – EQUITABLE NON-DISCHARGEABILITY OF 

INTENTIONAL TORT

COUNT III – JOHN DOES 1-10

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 32
4

I. 

ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Maria Judith Diaz Castro, brings this adversary proceeding seeking 

liquidation of her disputed claim, an order determining that the claim(s) by the 

Plaintiffs against Defendants in Action 3:16-cv-02873-SCC (“civil rights action of 

2016”, Exhibit A, Oct. 25, 2016 Complaint) are excepted from discharge, and/or 

an order lifting the automatic stay.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, 

and 11 U.S.C. § 523. This Adversary Proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

2. Venue in the District of Puerto Rico is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a).

3. This Adversary Proceeding relates to In re Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, No. 

3:17-BK-3283 (LTS) now pending in this Court (the “Bankruptcy Case”). 

Plaintiffs hold a general unsecured, unliquidated, and disputed claim against the 

Debtor pursuant to a case styled Maria Judith Diaz Castro v. Commonwealth, et 

al, Docket No. 3:16-cv-02873-SCC (the “Civil Rights Lawsuit”). A copy of the 

Civil Rights Lawsuit is attached and incorporated as Exhibit A.

4. A Proof of Claim in this matter was filed on May 24, 2018 in the amount of 

$30,000,000.00 dollars. Exhibit B. 

5. A motion to lift the automatic stay was filed in August of 2017, and denied on 

August 29, 2017. Exhibit C. (Order Denying Lifting of Stay)

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 32
5

III. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff’s Wrongful Incarceration in the Media

6. This matter stems from the reckless and/or intentional wrongful prosecution and 

decade-long incarceration of plaintiff from 2003 to 2016 for a heinous crime 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico prosecutors knew she did not commit.

7. Plaintiff’s case received widespread media attention from 2003 to 2016.1

8. Upon her release in 2016, plaintiff was hailed throughout the Commonwealth as 

having overcome a grave injustice: 

Source: https://www.pressreader.com/puerto-rico/primera-hora/20160120/281921657054313 :

1 See, e.g, https://www.primerahora.com/opinion/jay-fonseca/columnas/gatilleros-el-caso-de-mariajudith-diaz-castro/ and https://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/tribunales/videos/maria-judith-diaz-castrosale-de-la-carcel-192453/.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 32
6

9. Commonwealth media praised her for her courage, and celebrated her freedom:

Source: https://www.pressreader.com/puerto-rico/primera-hora/20160119/282059096005796

10.Upon her release in late 2016, plaintiff filed suit in the District Court for the District 

of Puerto Rico, infra, and she now seeks to have her rights adjudicated in light of 

Puerto Rico’s PROMESA proceedings.

IV. THE PARTIES TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT

11.Plaintiff, Maria Judith Diaz Castro, is a resident of Puerto Rico and a plaintiff 

in the federal civil rights lawsuit of 2016, which entails a 2003 wrongful conviction 

and a one hundred-year sentence, followed by nearly 13 years of incarceration and 

her subsequent release from prison in 2016, after a retrial involving a recanting 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 32
7

witness which forced Commonwealth prosecutors to dismiss all charges against 

her. During her wrongful incarceration, she suffered physical and emotional 

trauma. 

12.The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was at all times material to the facts alleged 

in the civil rights complaint, the employer of the Puerto Rico police agents and 

prosecutors who negligently and/or maliciously instigated a criminal action 

against plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro in 2003 for a crime she did not commit.

13.Detective Juan J. Colon Baez (“Juan Colon”), a defendant in the civil rights 

lawsuit of 2016, is a former homicide detective who in 1999 investigated a double 

murder and wrongfully prosecuted plaintiff herein, despite compelling proofs 

depicting her innocence, as depicted in an affidavit executed by lead detective 

Hector Figueroa, who was the first to investigate the crime. Mr. Baez based his 

wrongful prosecution on the testimony of two previously unknown “surprise” 

witnesses, one of whom was under a plea deal as part of a separate prosecution.

14.Mario Rivera Giegel, Esq. (“Mario Rivera”) a defendant in the civil rights 

lawsuit of 2016, is a State Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who 

investigated and wrongfully prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro in 2003 

while acting under color of state law.

15. Luis Rios Diaz, Esq. (“Luis Rios”) a defendant in the civil rights lawsuit of 

2016, is a State Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who 

investigated and wrongfully prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro in 2003 

while acting under color of state law. More specifically, prosecutor Luis Rios 

was directly responsible for the suppression of exculpatory evidence which may 

have resulted in a not guilty verdict had it been presented to the 2003 jury.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 32
8

16. Luis Navas De Leon, Esq. (“Luis Navas”) a defendant in the civil rights 

lawsuit of 2016, is a State Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who 

investigated and wrongfully prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro in 2003 

while acting under color of state law. 

17. Leilany Carrion Del Toro, Esq. (“Leilany Carrion”), a defendant in the civil 

rights lawsuit, is a State Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who 

investigated and wrongfully prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro in 2003 

while acting under color of state law. 

18.Sergio Rubio Paredes, Esq. (“Sergio Rubio”) a defendant in the civil rights 

lawsuit of 2016, is a State Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who 

investigated and wrongfully prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro in 2003 

while acting under color of state law and who received specific credible 

information from various sources and in various occasions that the double murder 

of April 1999 was likely committed by another suspect known as “Pijuan.” Per 

an affidavit of July 15, 2010, defendant (detective) Colon Baez specifically 

indicated that Prosecutor Paredes was responsible for the selection of the trial 

witnesses.

19.Emilio Aril Garcia, Esq. (“Emilio Aril”) a defendant in the civil rights lawsuit 

of 2016, is a State Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who 

investigated and prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro acting under color of 

state law and who received specific information from various sources and in 

various occasions that the murder of Efrain Pena Dieppa and Julio Luyando was 

committed by individuals known as “Pijuan” and “Falo.” Per an affidavit of July 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 32
9

15, 2010, defendant (detective) Colon Baez specifically indicated that 

Prosecutor Garcia was also responsible for the selection of the trial witnesses.

 

20.Sharon Pláceres Sáenz (“Sharon Placeres”) was the Commonwealth’s 

"surprise” witness at plaintiff’s 2003 trial, who fabricated a murder conspiracy 

against plaintiff and her siblings in an effort to secure her own plea deal in a 

separate prosecution.

V. BACKGROUND/FACTS 

Plaintiff’s Wrongful Felony Conviction in 2003 Followed by Over Ten 

Years of Unlawful Incarceration

A.

APRIL 1999 ROOSTER FIGHTING COMPETITION & DOUBLE HOMICIDE

21. On April 7, 1999, one “Efrain Dieppa AKA Pito Bracer” and one “Julio Luyando” 

were both fatally gunned down in a rooster fighting establishment in the 

township/municipality of “Naguabo” in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

22.The two victims were spectators in a gambling establishment which was hosting a 

rooster fighting sports betting venue, a traditional albeit controversial Puerto Rican 

pastime, when one or more assailants entered and fired the fatal shots.2

2 See https://www.primerahora.com/opinion/jay-fonseca/columnas/gatilleros-elcaso-de-maria-judith-diaz-castro/. (Spanish Media Website Primera Hora, 

January 17, 2016). See also PR v. Castro el al, 2005 PR App. LEXIS 3891 (2005).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 9 of 32
10

23.Per the trial testimony of the first detective at the crime scene, to wit detective Jose 

Rodriguez, the manager of the sports-gambling venue observed multiple assailants 

entering the premises. See PR v. Castro et al, 2005 PR App. LEXIS 3891 (2005), 

none of whom were ever identified as being plaintiff herein.

24. Detectives José David, Detective Julio Sánchez , Sargent Orlando Arroyo, 

detective Juan García, Detective Ramón Ortiz, and lead detective Héctor 

Figueroa – a whistleblower who authored an affidavit incriminating defendants 

herein - constituted the first group of detectives assigned to investigate the 

horrendous assault. Ibid.

25. A Commonwealth prosecutor, Ms. Cruz Oquendo, was also present at the crime 

scene on the first day, and took charge of the investigation along with lead 

Detective Hector Figueroa. Ibid.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 10 of 32
11

B.

Investigation by Lead Detective Figueroa: Multiple Eyewitnesses Credibly Identify

a Primary Suspect; Witnesses Fear Testifying out of Retaliation; 

Reassignment of Investigation to Detective Colon Baez And His Two 

Previously Unknown Purported Witnesses

26. Lead homicide detective Hector Figueroa – a whistleblower who authored an 

affidavit on plaintiff’s behalf - initially investigated the crime for over six 

months and, based on credible first-hand eyewitness accounts, identified one 

“Pijuan” as the prime suspect, and one “Falo” as a potential suspect or a “person 

of interest”.

27.In his sworn affidavit dated October 19, 2016, the contents of which are hereby 

adopted as allegations herein unless otherwise stated, resulting from his 

interview in connection with a “CIPA” administrative proceeding3, lead detective 

and whistleblower Hector Figueroa asserted under oath that on the date of the 

crime, he visited the crime scene accompanied by detectives Julio Sanchez and 

Garcia Cepeda.

28.Per his affidavit, he then interviewed numerous eye witnesses, including the owner 

of the gambling venue, a minor later identified as Julio Santiago who had 

witnessed the shooting, and one Juan Luquis Rosario, who sat between the two 

victims and had also suffered a bullet wound. 

3 CIPA is a Commonwealth administrative agency charged with adjudicating 

complaints against law enforcement personnel. Website: 

https://agencias.pr.gov/agencias/cipa/Pages/default.aspx

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 11 of 32
12

29. As per detective Figueroa’s affidavit, the minor Julio Santiago identified the 

shooter as one “Pijuan”, someone Santiago knew from prior interactions. 

30. In his own affidavit of July 16, 2013 used in a collateral attack to request 

a retrial– Mr. Santiago stated he saw Pijuan enter the premises, and then 

begin shooting, alongside multiple assailants with firearms, a statement which 

is hereby adopted as an allegation herein.

31. Mr. Santiago in his affidavit further stated, and plaintiff hereby adopts 

as an allegation herein, that murder victim Efrain Dieppa AKA Pito Bracer

identified “Pijuan” as his sworn enemy and that, having observed plaintiff’s 

siblings, made no such reference to them and seemingly did not recognize

them. 

32. In fact, Detective Figueroa’s whistleblower affidavit asserts that most of the 

people interviewed that day also identified “Pijuan” - a person known in the 

community - as the culprit or shooter.

33.However, these potential witnesses initially feared making formal statements out 

of concern the assailant would seek retaliation.

34.Mr. Figueroa in his affidavit thus stated that he eventually met with the minor, Julio 

Santiago, at the prosecutor’s office, and was informed by his step-father that Mr. 

Santiago would not be involved in this case. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 12 of 32
13

35. As “Pijuan” would eventually perish in an unrelated incident, both Julio Santiago, 

supra, as well as Juan Luis Rosario would eventually author affidavits on behalf 

of plaintiff. 

36. Juan Luquis Rosario - who sat between two of the victims and also suffered bullet 

wounds – in his 2009 affidavit in fact claimed that he was never called as a witness 

at the 2003 trial, despite being a prominent eye witness and victim of the shooting.

Reassignment of Investigation to New Detective Juan Colon Baez

37.Mr. Figueroa in his whistleblower “CIPA” affidavit further stated that he was 

removed from the case six months after beginning his investigation (having 

identified “Pijuan” as the prime culprit), because of some unrelated “incident”, 

and that the case was reassigned to Detective Juan Colon Baez, defendant 

herein. 

38.Mr. Figueroa then asserted that he visited the crime scene with prosecutors Emilio 

Aril & Sergio Rubio Paredes, defendants herein, and newly-assigned lead 

detective Juan Colon Baez, as well as a new “mystery” witness who had her face 

covered.

39.Mr. Figueroa then informed the new detective (Juan Colon Baez) and the 

prosecutors that the minor he had interviewed at the crime scene on the date of the 

murderers, Julio Santiago, was now willing to testify.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 13 of 32
14

40. Mr. Figueroa further asserted in his affidavit that the prosecutors and/or detective 

Juan Colon Baez advised him to “forget about” the eye witnesses identifying 

“Pijuan” - discarding altogether known, credible, leads. 

41.The anonymous witness who visited the crime scene, upon information and belief 

was defendant Sharon Placeres, who would provide the new prosecuting team 

and the new detective with a new version of the events – an alleged conspiracy 

involving plaintiff, her siblings, and a triggerman purportedly named “Cas”.

42.This new (false) account of the crime as per recently-identified witness Sharon 

Placeres was corroborated at the 2003 trial by Yahaira Soto, also previously 

unknown, who would recant at the re-trial in 2016.

43. In return for this false testimony, this new witness (Sharon Placeres) would, 

upon information and belief, get leniency in an unrelated prosecution in which she 

was the primary defendant.

 C. 

2003 Trial

Detective Figueroa’s Testimony &

Previously Undisclosed Exculpatory Evidence

44. At plaintiff's 2003 trial, Detective Figueroa testified that he had prepared a 

Supplementary Report setting forth the interview with the minor witness – Julio 

Santiago, who had credibly identified “Pijuan” as the assailant.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 14 of 32
15

45.Unless otherwise stated, Figueroa’s trial testimony as set forth in this 

complaint is hereby adopted in its entirety as allegations herein.

46. Detective Figueroa further testified that Mr. Santiago was able to identify the 

culprits ... and that Santiago did not inculpate plaintiff or her siblings as having 

committed the crime.

47.Detective Figueroa then testified at the 2003 trial that Mr. Santiago had identified 

one “Pijuán” as the assailant, a person known in his community. 

48.Per the Figueroa affidavit, Mr. Santiago was then interviewed at the CIC, the 

Puerto Rico Police Headquarters, and his stepfather advised Mr. Figueroa that 

Santiago was a minor and would not cooperate with the investigation. 

49.This fact was then communicated to Commonwealth Prosecutor Oquendo.

50. Mr. Figueroa then testified that the report he had prepared in connection with 

Julio Santiago was submitted to the Humacao CIC (Commonwealth Police). 

51.This testimony, upon information and belief, marked the first time plaintiff’s 

defense team became aware of the Julio Santiago exculpatory evidence, which 

exculpatory evidence had been previously generally requested and denied by 

the Commonwealth.

52. Mr. Figueroa further testified at trial that he investigated the matter for over six 

(6) months, and the investigation was then reassigned to detective Colón Báez.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 15 of 32
16

53.The report he prepared was not produced as exculpatory evidence which had been 

requested by plaintiff’s lawyer (Huertas), the appellate division in 2005 having 

found that the report was not in the possession of the Commonwealth prosecutors, 

infra.

54. In addition, plaintiff’s attorney (Huertas) authored a subsequent affidavit on 

October 30, 2015, infra, in which he stated that an exculpatory statement by 

decedent’s mother, to wit Yolanda Dieppa, in which she adamantly claimed 

“Pijuan’s” involvement in the murder, while specifically exonerating plaintiff, 

was never provided to plaintiff and was therefore not referenced at trial.

 D.

2003 Trial –Commonwealth’s New Star Witness, Sharon Placeres, Falsely 

Alleges A Conspiracy Involving Plaintiff; Witness Yahaira Soto, Who Would 

Later Recant, Corroborates Testimony

55. Sharon Placeres, the Commonwealth’s “star” witness, testified at trial that she was 

allegedly privy to a purported discussion between plaintiff’s sibling and one of the 

victims, “Pito Bracer”, regarding an illicit narcotics distribution point. 

56. Per Ms. Placeres, the victim “Pito Bracer” was then told by plaintiff’s siblings that 

he was not permitted to transact business at a location he had suggested, and the 

victim, Mr. Bracer expressed agreement.

57.Notwithstanding, per the testimony of Ms. Placeres, plaintiff’s siblings allegedly 

conspired to assassinate Mr. Bracer at the rooster fighting establishment. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 16 of 32
17

58. Ms. Placeres testified that on the day of the crime, plaintiff’s siblings visited the 

rooster sports fighting venue (crime scene) along with plaintiff.

59.This was followed by interactions with the purported hitman, one “Cas”, and 

subsequently the shootings.

60.The following is a verbatim translation or interpretation of the appellate division’s 

2005 recitation of Sharon Placere’s trial testimony:

Sharon... stated that she was present when the victim Pito Bracer told 

[plaintiff’s] brothers Edwin, David (Fito) and Raúl Díaz Castro, that he was 

going to set up a drug store in the El Rincón de La Paz, territory already 

occupied for the transfer of drugs by the Díaz Castro brothers. ...That they 

told Pito that he was not going to set up a drug store in [*18] that place. After 

Pito Bracer agreed that he would not and left the scene, the Díaz Castro 

brothers conspired to "get him out of the way or kill him." They agreed that 

they would invite Pito to the galley, since he was a fan of that sport. ...She 

asserted that a few weeks later David told her that she was going to the galley, 

that he had invited Pito to the galley and that together with his brothers he 

had planned Pito's execution....On the day of the events, he went to the [crime 

scene] in David's car with him. [plaintiff] María Judith and Edna got into 

another car with Raúl. Upon reaching the [crime scene] they met Edwin and 

his cousin Yahaira. The women went to the upper seats.

Then he went down to the hall, David told him that he will stay in the hall that 

he would make a call. David told him that he had called his friend and that he 

was on his way. Then Cas came in with another [man]. ...When he arrived he 

greeted them and María Judith and Edna pointed to Cas, Pito Bracer as the 

person to be executed. .... David (Fito) ... gave Cas the weapon (a nickelplated pistol with wooden handles) with the Díaz Castro brothers and the 

witness present. .... That gun was David's, he had seen it before. Cas backed 

away and David pulled her over and told her not to go get shot because they 

were going to do the job, he took her by the hand and she heard the first shot. 

He left with David outside and Judith, Ñeca and Raúl came out after him. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 17 of 32
18

When he was outside he heard several shots. The shouting was heard..and 

people began to leave. She, David, Raúl, María Judith and Edna Iris met 

outside. Then Cas and his friend came out. The first told David and Raúl that 

he had done the work, that they get paid. María Judith took out $2,000 from 

a black bundle and counted it together with Edna in bales of a hundred and 

gave them to her .... Cas asked David for the gift he had been offered, 

referring to a gun. They told him that they would give it to him later. Cas and 

his friend left in a Kia car. ..

Edwin was in the "bleechers" with Yahaira. She left with David and Ñeca, 

María Judith and Raúl left in another car. Then Edwin arrived and told David 

and Raúl that Cas had done [*20] the job, but that an innocent person, a 

merchant, had died. The witness admitted that she told the authorities what 

happened because an innocent person died and because she was caught in 

connection with some murder cases in Caguas. ... In the cross-examination, 

she asserted that she did not say anything until 2002 because the appellant 

David had threatened her, although she admitted that she did not say anything 

about the threats in one of the sworn statements she gave on the facts. She 

asserted that the appellant threatened to take "the fucking boy" out of her, 

since she was pregnant at that time. ....

PR v. Castro el al, 2005 PR App. LEXIS 3891 (2005).

61.One Yahaira Soto, another “surprise” star witness who would later recant in 2016, 

corroborated the foregoing testimony of Sharon Placeres at the 2003 trial.

62. As a result of this testimony, plaintiff was found guilty and sentenced to 

over 99 years of incarceration, and proofs regarding her innocence, e.g. 

testimony regarding “Pijuan”, including the Dieppa statement and Julio 

Santiago’s testimony, was not considered by the jury. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 18 of 32
19

VI. The APPEALS, HABEAS CORPUS, & POST-TRIAL MOTIONS –

A. 2005 Appellate Review and Findings

63.The Commonwealth appellate court in 2005, PR v. Castro el al, 2005 PR App. 

LEXIS 3891 (2005), reviewed plaintiff’s challenges to the guilty verdict, and 

specifically commented on the exculpatory evidence which first came to light 

during the trial – the Hector Figueroa report and/or his knowledge regarding 

credible eyewitnesses who had identified “Pijuan” as the primary culprit.

64.At the time of the 2005 appeal, plaintiff was not aware of the exculpatory Dieppa 

statement, which was the subject of the 2015 motion for a new trial, infra. 

65. The appellate court, PR v. Castro el al, 2005 PR App. LEXIS 3891 (2005), thus

considered whether a new trial was warranted in light of the recently acknowledged 

exculpatory report by detective Hector Figueroa, and/or in light of the recently 

revealed exculpatory statement obtained by detective Figueroa regarding minor 

Julio Santiago, who had identified another shooter.

66. In finding that the concealment of these items did not warrant a new trial, the Court 

held as follows (translated or interpreted from Spanish to English):

The appellants argue that certain vague, imprecise and uncorroborated 

information provided by agent Figueroa Torres, regarding the fact that a 

minor who was[at the crime scene] next to the deceased Julio Luyando 

Carmona, told him that a certain Pijuán was the one who murdered Pito 

Bracer due to personal quarrels and Mr. Luyando Carmona....... turned out 

to be exculpatory evidence; that he knew because he lived in the same sector 

as this Pijuán. .................

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 19 of 32
20

We have reviewed the testimony of agent Figueroa Torres, in light of the 

appellants' request for exculpatory evidence referred to under Rule 95 of 

Criminal Procedure, 34 L.P.R.A. Ap. II R. 95. We determined that such 

evidence was not in the possession of the Public Ministry, nor did it exist, it 

came to light during the testimony of agent Figueroa Torres... The testimony 

of agent Figueroa Torres was approved by the jury together with the other 

testimonies and the evidence presented and admitted, producing the 

aforementioned verdict. In consideration of which the error was not 

committed.

Ibid.

67. Notably, the Commonwealth appellate court in 2005 found that the

exculpatory evidence was not in the possession of the Commonwealth 

prosecutors prior to the 2003 trial.

68.Upon information and belief, the numerous other affidavits authored after 

this 2005 appeal, as well as other new evidence, depicts that in fact 

Commonwealth prosecutors were in the possession, or had knowledge of, the 

exculpatory Figueroa report, as well as the “Dieppa” statement, infra.

69.In fact, in his 2016 affidavit, detective Figueroa asserted that the prosecution 

was specifically made aware of the Julio Santiago exculpatory evidence, supra, 

a statement which is hereby incorporated as an allegation herein.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 20 of 32
21

B. 2010 Habeas Corpus

70.Plaintiff in 2010 filed a pro se habeas corpus petition with the District Court of 

Puerto Rico. The District Court, however, found that plaintiff had not:

exhausted all state remedies, depriving this Court of jurisdiction over the present 

case. Moreover, Petitioner has not opposed Defendants’ motion to dismiss nor 

shown any reason for exempting her from the exhaustion requirement.1 As such, this 

Court must dismiss her habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state court 

remedies. 

Diaz-Castro v. Roman-Roman, 683 F Supp 2d 189 (Dist. PR, 2010).

71.The District Court then set forth the procedural posture of the case, and collaterally 

also found that the habeas petition was time-barred, to wit:

Petitioner was sentenced on June 23, 2003. She then filed an appeal to the Puerto 

Rico Court of Appeals which was denied on December 12, 2005. Her subsequent 

motion for reconsideration to the appeals court was denied on March 3, 2006. 

Petitioner’s writ of certiorari to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court was also denied on 

June 2, 2006. Finally, Petitioner sought reconsideration, and was denied such relief 

on July 21, 2006, and once again on August 21, 2006. Therefore, the State court's 

final judgment was final as on or around August 21, 2006. Since there is no evidence 

that Petitioner initiated any other post-conviction or collateral review of her 

conviction, the one-year period of limitations began on or around August 22, 2006. 

As such, Petitioner should have filed the instant petition on or around August 22, 

2007. 

Ibid.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 21 of 32
22

C. July 19, 2013 MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

72.While incarcerated, plaintiff on July 19 2013, filed a second motion for a new trial, 

the first one having been filed immediately after the 2003 trial and denied on 

appeal.

73. The following witnesses provided new certifications on behalf of plaintiff, which 

supported the proposition that Commonwealth prosecutors did not disclose 

exculpatory evidence and selectively and wrongfully prosecuted plaintiff based 

solely on a purported conspiracy set forth by the testimony of Sharon Placeres, 

who had been under indictment and a plea deal to testify, along with Yahaira Soto, 

who had been threatened or coerced to testify, to wit:

i. Nilsa Dieppa, mother victim Efrain Dieppa– stated under oath 

that the culprit was likely “Pijuan”, an adversary of the victim, 

and not plaintiff.

ii. Nancy Dieppa, sister of victim Dieppa – stated that the culprit 

was likely “Pijuan”, since victim Efrain Dieppa had an 

altercation with him one week prior to the shooting. She was not 

called as a witness at trial, and detective/defendant Juan Colon 

Baez was aware of her potential testimony.

iii. Miguel Rivera Serrano, Eyewitness – declared under oath that 

he saw the Diaz brothers (e.g. plaintiff) leave the rooster 

establishment at 8pm, and at 10pm saw 8 to 10 armed people, 

some with face coverings, storm into the building. He did not 

see plaintiff or her siblings among the assailants.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 22 of 32
23

iv. Harry Ocasio, Eyewitness- one of the managers of the rooster 

fighting/gambling establishment, declared under oath that he 

was not interviewed by the police and that the Diaz brothers (e.g. 

plaintiff) left at 8pm and never came back. He further asserted 

that his testimony contradicts the Commonwealth’s star witness, 

Sharon Placeres, who had placed plaintiff at the scene at 10pm.

v. Hermes Castro (minor), a patron, Mr. Castro asserted under 

oath that the purported triggerman “Cas,” identified by star 

witness Sharon Placeres, was not present at the crime scene. He 

further asserted that plaintiff and siblings left at 8pm, and never 

returned. He was not interviewed by police.

vi. Adaberto Gonzalez, Eyewitness. A patron, Mr. Gonzalez was 

interviewed by police but was never called as a witness. Mr. 

Gonzalez firmly asserted that plaintiff was not at the crime scene 

at the time of the shooting. 

vii. Victor Delgado, a patron, asserted that plaintiff left at 8pm. He 

then asserted that he and plaintiff’s siblings went to play billiards 

elsewhere prior to the shooting, thus constituting an alibi the 

jury was not made aware of.

viii. Julio Santiago (Minor) – He was near the two deceased victims, 

and also in the vicinity of witness-victim Juan Luquis Rosario. 

One of the victims (Efrain, aka “Pito Bracer”) uttered that “there 

goes my enemy” - referring to “Pijuan”. That “Pijuan” then 

fired... and then left... That the Diaz brothers were not there as 

they had left at 8pm.. That he’s certain the culprit was “Pijuan” 

(who was never investigated)...That he did not testify previously 

as he was afraid for his life... 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 23 of 32
24

74.In addition to the foregoing, plaintiff’s defense counsel, Luis Huerta, Esq., 

authored an affidavit dated October 30, 2015 in which he stated inter alia that 

he (generally) requested, and was denied, exculpatory evidence.

75.He would later discover that such evidence did in fact exist, and that the 

Commonwealth never provided same to defense counsel Huerta.

76. Specifically, defense counsel in his affidavit stated that he did not receive a 

sworn statement dated Feb 6, 2003, made by one of the victim’s progenitors prior 

to trial, to wit Nilsa Yolanda Dieppa, in which she had stated that she was 

convinced of plaintiff’s innocence, as the likely culprit was an individual known 

as “Pijuan” - who had also been identified by eyewitnesses to the crime as per lead 

Detective Hector Figueroa.

77. Further, defense counsel Mr. Huerta had specifically requested 

exculpatory evidence (in general terms), and Commonwealth prosecutor 

Emilio Garcia in responded by claiming that they had no such exculpatory 

evidence in their possession.

78. Mr. Huerta further set forth in his affidavit that the first time he became aware 

that prosecutors had withheld this exculpatory evidence was at a meeting on 

September 16, 2014. 

79. Defense counsel Mr. Huerta then asserted that the nondisclosure or 

concealment of this significant exculpatory evidence constituted a violation of 

plaintiff’s substantive and procedural Due Process rights.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 24 of 32
25

D. LOWER COURT GRANTS NEW TRIAL IN 2015, FINDS VIOLATIONS OF 

PLAINTIFF’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

80.On May 29, 2015 the lower trial Court granted plaintiff a new trial as per plaintiff's 

July 19 , 2013 motion.

81. In doing so, the lower Court in its May 29, 2015 order explicitly found 

that plaintiff’s constitutional rights had been violated, to wit (translated or 

interpreted from English to Spanish):

We must consider the issue regarding witness Julio Santiago Medina.... This 

witness was a minor on the date of the crime, and was interviewed by lead 

Detective Hector Figueroa before the trial.. Detective Figueroa at the trial 

testified that, not only did he interview Mr. Santiago (as part of his 

investigation), but he also placed Commonwealth Prosecutor Cruz Oquendo 

on Notice of same...When detective Figueroa was asked regarding Mr. 

Santiago’s statements at the 2003 trial, Commonwealth Prosecutor Rios 

objected, thus preventing the defense from [hearing] Mr. Santiago’s 

exculpatory testimony. Even more damaging to defendants, prior to trial the 

Commonwealth prosecutors had first-hand evidence from Detective Hector 

Figueroa regarding Mr. Santiago’s exculpatory testimony, and they did not 

give this evidence the due attention it merited in a case of this magnitude, and 

this evidence was withheld from the defense in violation of Rule 95 and in 

violation of [plaintiff's] procedural and substantive due process rights. 

Detective Figueroa further testified at trial that he had prepared a 

supplementary report setting forth this exculpatory testimony, and this report 

mysteriously disappeared. 

......

Having considered the proofs proffered by the defense, particularly the 

testimony of Nilsa Yolanda Dieppa and Julio Santiago Medina, and having 

considered the parties’ arguments, and the moving papers in light of Criminal 

Procedure Rule 95... this Court finds that there exists a sufficient basis for a 

new trial, given the Commonwealth’s obvious violation of [plaintiff’s] due 

process rights, as it did not disclose exculpatory evidence which could have 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 25 of 32
26

given rise to reasonable doubt... a new trial will be scheduled for July 6, 

2015...” 

82.Plaintiff hereby adopts these trial court findings as allegations herein.

VII. 2016 Retrial

Commonwealth Primary Witness Yahaira Soto Recants, All 

Charges Dropped

83.Plaintiff’s re-trial, originally set for July 6, 2015, began in January of 2016.

84. One of the Commonwealth’s primary witnesses, who had been identified by 

detective (defendant) Colon-Baez, to wit, Yahaira Soto, recanted her prior 

testimony from the 2003 trial, and now claimed that she had been threatened and 

coerced by “star” witness Sharon Placeres - who had been indicted in a separate 

murder investigation- into testifying against the plaintiff herein in 2003.

85. Ms. Yahaira Soto was thus now (in 2016) unable to testify that plaintiff had 

conspired with anyone to commit the crimes.

86.As a result, all charges against plaintiff were dropped on January 15, 2016 and 

she was formally released from prison shortly thereafter.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 26 of 32
27

VIII. CIPA ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS & LEAD DETECTIVE 

FIGUEROA’S AFFIDAVIT INCULPATING DEFENDANTS HEREIN; 

AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT COLON BAEZ

87.Plaintiff after her unlawful incarceration commenced administrative proceedings 

before the Commonwealth’s CIPA, or the “Comisión de Investigación, 

Procesamiento y Apelación”, an administrative agency charged with investigating 

and prosecuting law enforcement wrongdoing, potentially suspending or 

discharging officers found to have committed infractions.

88. Subsequently, as part of its investigation, CIPA interviewed lead detective Hector 

Figueroa under oath, resulting in his October 19, 2016 Affidavit, in which he 

inculpated defendants herein, statements which are hereby adopted as 

allegations herein. 

89. Defendant Colon Baez authored a similar CIPA affidavit, in which he expressly 

stated that defendants and Commonwealth Prosecutors Sergio Rubio Paredes and 

Amilio Arrill Garcia made the determination as to which witnesses to use at trial, 

statements which are hereby adopted as allegations herein. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 27 of 32
28

IX. Filing of the Civil Rights Action and 

The Automatic Stay

A. Causes of Action Averred

90.On October 25, 2016, plaintiff commenced the underlying 42 USC §1983 civil 

rights action, Docket 3:16-cv-02873-SCC, which has been stayed since 2017 by 

virtue of the PROMESA automatic stay.

91.Plaintiff averred the following 42 USC §1983 causes of action: malicious 

prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and 

wrongful conviction.

B. Filings In the District Court of Puerto Rico

92. Plaintiff filed her District Court civil rights complaint on October 25, 2016 naming 

the following parties as defendants: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Detective Juan 

Colon Baez, Prosecutor Mario Rivera-Giegel, Prosecutor Luis Rios Diaz, 

Prosecutor Luis Navas de Leon, and Prosecutor Leilany Carrion Del Toro. Exhibit 

A.

93.On January 11, 2017 Defendants Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Mario 

Rivera-Giegel filed a R. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, Exhibit D.

94. On February 14, 2017, plaintiff filed her Opposition or “Response” to the 

Motion to Dismiss Exhibit E.

95. On March 16, 2017, defendant Juan Colon Baez filed a Motion to Dismiss, 

also joining in the Commonwealth’s motion. Exhibit F.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 28 of 32
29

96. On March 28, 2017, the District Court issued a scheduling order which 

required all defendants to file an answer notwithstanding that the dispositive orders 

had not been ruled upon. Exhibit G.

97. Accordingly on May 1, 2017, defendant Juan J Colon Baez filed an answer 

to plaintiff’s complaint. Exhibit H.

98. On May 2, 2017, the Commonwealth and defendant Mario Rivera-Geigel 

similarly filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint. Exhibit I.

99.On June 5, 2017, plaintiff then filed a Motion For Leave to Amend Complaint to 

join prosecutors Sergio Rubio Paredes and Emilio Aril Garcia as defendants, as 

these parties had recently became known as a result of a sworn statement by 

whistleblower Detective Hector Figueroa as part of the administrative hearings 

before “CIPA”, or the “Comision de Investigacion, Procesamiento y Apelacion”, 

charged with investigating and prosecuting wrongdoing by law enforcement. 

Exhibit J.

C. Automatic Stay

100. On June 19, 2017, defendants filed a PROMESA motion to stay Exhibit K.

101. On June 30, 2017, the District Court granted the Stay Order sought by 

defendants. Exhibit L.

102. On May 8, 2018, the District Court issued an order vacating a jury trial which 

had been scheduled for May 11, 2018. 

103. This Court on August 29, 2017 denied the lifting of the automatic stay, and as 

such this claim remains disputed and unliquidated. Exhibit C.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 29 of 32
30

COUNT I

Liquidation of Disputed Claim

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs in this complaint as if fully set 

forth herein.

2. These foregoing allegations amend and/or supplement the allegations in Exhibit 

A, the October 25, 2016 complaint, allegations which are hereby made of part of 

the allegations herein. 

3. These counts in the October 25, 2016 complaint, as amended by the foregoing 

allegation, constitute plaintiff’s “claims”.

4. In its August 29, 2017 order, this Court stated that “Movant’s unsecured claims 

for monetary relief can be liquidated and addressed through the claims process 

in this district court proceeding.” Exhibit C

5. Accordingly, plaintiff requests that her disputed claims be liquidated in this 

forum, and/or that the stay be lifted so that she may liquidate the disputed claim in 

action 3:16-cv-02873-SCC.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests and prays that this Honorable Court 

commence proceedings to resolve the disputed and unliquidated nature of this 

debt or claim, or that the automatic stay be lifted such that this claim may be 

resolved in the Civil Rights Action with Docket 3:16-cv-02873-SCC.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 30 of 32
31

COUNT II

Dischargeability

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs in this complaint as if fully set 

forth herein.

2. Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint (as amended herein) alleged, inter alia, the 

following intentional non-dischargeable torts: malicious prosecution, intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and wrongful conviction. 

Exhibit A.

3. These debts are not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

4. Although the foregoing statute may not be applicable in PROMESA proceedings, 

this Court retains discretion to declare these claims non-dischargeable as a matter 

of common law, equitable principles, and/or as per applicable Bankruptcy, 

Supreme Court, or First Circuit jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests and prays that this Honorable Court 

declare this claim non-dischargeable, having been the result of a “willful and 

malicious injury by the debtor” and/or Fraud.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 31 of 32
32

COUNT III

Liability of John Does 1-10

1. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs in this complaint as if fully set forth 

herein.

2. John Does 1-10 are unidentified defendants who knowingly acted in concert with 

the named defendants herein, as principal and/or agent, thus causing plaintiff 

injury.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests and prays that this Honorable Court 

commence proceedings to resolve the disputed and unliquidated nature of this 

debt or claim, or that the automatic stay be lifted such that this claim may be 

resolved in the Civil Rights Action with Docket 3:16-cv-02873-SCC.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED 

Dated: November 10, 2022 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 10, 2022 I electronically filed the 

foregoing amended complaint with the clerk of the court using the CM/ECF 

electronic filing system, which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys 

of record.

Santos A. Perez /s/____

Lcdo. Santos A. Perez-Mercado

USDC-PR 308105

Bufete PerezMPR

150 Speedwell, 

Morristown, NJ, 07960

(787)773-1477

(973)910-1647

www.PerezMPR.Com

www.NJLawCounsel.Com

sperez@njlawcounsel.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22839 Filed:11/10/22 Entered:11/10/22 17:03:25 Desc: Main

Document Page 32 of 32