IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY 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; LUIS RIOS DIAZ;

LUIS NAVAS DE LEON; LEILANY

CARRION DEL TORO

DEFENDANTS

PROMESA Title III

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

Adversary No. _____________

COMPLAINT TO LIQUIDATE

CLAIM AND/OR TO

DETERMINE

DISCHARGEABILITY OF

DISPUTED UNLIQUIDATED

CLAIM

And/Or Lifting the Automatic Stay

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 are excepted from

discharge, Exhibit A (3:16-cv-02873-SCC, Oct. 25, 2016 Complaint), and/or

an order lifting the automatic stay.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21821 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 10:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 10
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 AdversaryProceeding relates to In re Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, No.

3:17-BK-3283 (LTS) (Bankr. Puerto Rico) 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.

THE PARTIES TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT

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

in the civil rights lawsuit regarding her wrongful conviction, which was

overturned by the Puerto Rico appellate tribunals.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21821 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 10:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 10
7. 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 maliciously instigated a criminal action against

plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro for a double murder she did not commit, resulting

in her decade-long incarceration.

8. Detective Juan J. Colon Baez, a defendant in the civil rights lawsuit, is a

former homicide detective who in 1999 investigated a double murder and

prosecuted plaintiff hererin, Maria Judith Diaz Castro, despite compelling proofs

depicting her innocence.

9. Lcdo. Mario Rivera Giegel, a defendant in the civil rights lawsuit, is a State

Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who investigated and

prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro acting under color of law.

10.Lcdo. Luis Rios Diaz, a defendant in the civil rights lawsuit, is a State

Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who investigated and

prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro acting under color of law is a State

Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who investigated and

prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro acting under color of law.

11.Lcdo. Luis Navas De Leon, a defendant in the civil rights lawsuit, is a State

Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who investigated and

prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro acting under color of law.

12. Lcda. Leilany Carrion Del Toro, a defendant in the civil rights lawsuit, is a

State Prosecutor for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who investigated and

prosecuted plaintiff Maria J. Diaz Castro acting under color of law.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21821 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 10:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 10
BACKGROUND/FACTS

The DOUBLE HOMICIDE Of 1999 AND PLAINTIFF'S WRONGFUL

CONVICTION

13.On April 7, 1999, Efrain Pena Dieppa and Julio Luyando were murdered in a

rooster fighting establishment in Naguabo, Puerto Rico.

14.As a result of this incident the Puerto Rico Police Department and the Humacao

District Attorney’s Office launched an investigation.

15. Lead homicide detective agent Hector Figueroa-Torres - who would later file

an affidavit on plaintiff’s behalf - initially investigated the double-murder for

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

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

16. At least one of the witnesses to the murder of one of the victims, sat right next

to the victim during the attack and identified one “Pijuan” - a person known in

the community - as the assailant, as per a sworn affidavit by agent Hector

Figueroa-Torres dated October 19, 2016.

17. Agent Hector Figueroa-Torres also interviewed other witnesses, all of whom

stated unequivocally that “Pijuan” - a known person in the community - had

committed the double murderers.

18. However, the witnesses were all fearful of retaliation by “Pijuan”, and initially

refused to give statements under oath.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21821 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 10:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 10
19.In addition to the foregoing, the progenitor of one of the murder victims claimed,

and signed a sworn statement thereto, that one “Falo” - and not plaintiff - had

committed the double-homicide.

20. Months thereafter, Detective Juan Colon-Baez was abruptly assigned the case,

replacing Hector Figueroa-Torres as lead homicide detective.

21. Immediately after the case was reassigned to defendant Colon-Baez, detective

Hector Figueroa met with newly-assigned detective Colon-Baez, as well as a

number of state prosecutors, defendants herein, and informed them that at least

one of the known eyewitnesses was wiling to cooperate and inculpate primary

suspect “Pijuan” as the assailant.

22.However, the prospects of prosecuting “Pijuan” soon faded, as Mr. Hector

Figueroa’s comment regarding credible eyewitnesses was quickly and

unexpectedly brushed aside by the new lead detective Colon-Baez, defendant

herein, as well as the state prosecutors.

23. Instead, months after the investigation had begun, the new detective

Colon-Baez purportedly “identified” or “found” two new previously unknown

witnesses, to wit, one Sharon Placeres and Yahaira Soto, who were not

eyewitness to the murders themselves, and at least one of whom had been under

indictment for another murder, and was seeking a plea deal.

24.These two new previously unknown witnesses claimed that plaintiff and her

two brothers, as well as a hitman named “Cas”, conspired to commit the

double homicide.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21821 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 10:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 10
25. One of the new witnesses likely had a vendetta against plaintiff’s siblings, based

on prior incidents, and wrongfully, intentionally, with malice and without proofs

inculpated plaintiff and her siblings in the double-murder.

26. Further, none of these previously unidentified witnesses produced by

newly-assigned detective Colon-Baez were eyewitnesses to the actual

murder, and none identified “Pijuan” - who had been identified by various

eyewitnesses to the double homicide itself - as the suspect or the triggerman.

27. Instead, these two new purported “surprise” witnesses - at least one of whom

was being prosecuted criminally and sought a plea deal -identified the

triggerman or the hitman as one “Cas”, who was not the same person identified

by various credible eyewitnesses interviewed by lead detective Hector Figueroa,

and who had also witnessed the actual crime, as Mr. Hector Figueroa testified in

an affidavit and during plaintiff’s initial trial.

28. Eventually, state prosecutors decided to proceed against plaintiff and her

siblings, despite compelling evidence identifying another prime suspect, and

in 2003 plaintiff was then tried and convicted of the double-murder, based

on the two new previously unidentified witnesses which agent Colon-Baez

had purportedly “uncovered” as part of a new investigation, ignoring the

proofs uncovered during the initial investigation, which had credibly

identified one “Pijuan”, or “Falo” as the culprit.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21821 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 10:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 10
29. Agent Figueroa testified at the trial, and signed an affidavit thereto, stating

unequivocally that another suspect had been identified, and that plaintiff was not

initially a suspect in the matter.

30.Nonetheless, at the time of the 2003 trial, state prosecutors had withheld

exculpatory evidence, e.g. detective Hector Figueroa’s report, as well as a sworn

statement by the progenitor of one of the victims who had exculpated plaintiff,

thereby resulting in the conviction of plaintiff based solely on the testimony of

these two new witnesses who alleged a conspiracy, although they were not

eyewitnesses to the double-murder itself.

31.After a series of exhaustive appeals and collateral attacks on her sentence, and

over 10 years of incarceration, plaintiff was eventually granted a new trial in

2016.

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

detective Colon-Baez, to wit, one Yahaira Soto, at the 2016 trial recanted her

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

witness Sharon Placeres - who had been indicted in a separate murder

investigation- into testifying against the plaintiff herein in 2003.

33. As such, she was now (in 2016) unable to testify that plaintiff had conspired with

anyone to commit the double-murder.

34. As a result, all charges against plaintiff were dropped in early 2016.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21821 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 10:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 10
35. On October 25, 2016, plaintiff commenced the underlying 42 USC §1983 civil

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

2017 by virtue of the PROMESA automatic stay.

36. At the time the automatic stay was imposed, no depositions or discovery had

taken place, as the pleading/dispositive motion stage had only recently

concluded.

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

such this claim remains disputed and unliquidated. Exhibit C.

COUNT I

Liquidation of Disputed Claim

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

forth herein.

2. In its August 29, 2017 order, this Court 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

3. Accordingly, plaintiff requests that her disputed claim 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.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21821 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 10:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 10
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.

COUNT II

Dischargeability

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

forth herein.

2. Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint 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.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21821 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 10:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 9 of 10
Dated: August 12, 2022

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 11, 2022 I electronically filed the foregoing

Motion 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#:21821 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 10:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 10 of 10