Opinion ID: 705213
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Official Misconduct

Text: 18 Cruz challenges his conviction for official misconduct in violation of 9 Guam Code Ann. Sec. 49.90 on the ground of insufficient evidence. We conclude that the government adduced sufficient evidence to sustain Cruz's conviction for this crime. 19 Cruz argues that his requests for two new lot numbers were authorized because the Director of the Department of Land Management, Frank Castro, testified that he had delegated his responsibilities to Cruz. He also argues that he never intended his acts to benefit himself or anyone else nor to harm anyone. 20 It is true that Frank Castro testified he delegated his responsibilities to Cruz. But universal principles of agency (and common sense) suggest that in delegating all the authority he had to Cruz, Castro could not have delegated any authority he did not have, namely any authority to commit crimes. Therefore, we conclude that any delegation of authority by Castro to Cruz did not authorize any and all acts thereafter committed by Cruz under the aegis of such delegated authority. 21 The government argues that the jury could have inferred Cruz's intent to benefit from his acts from the evidence of suspicious loans between Anderson and Cruz. But the Appellate Division concluded any evidence of benefit to Cruz was essentially vague. We agree with the Appellate Division, however, that the jury could have inferred Cruz's intent to harm the people of Guam by his use of his official capacity to create false title to government lands. 22 AFFIRMED.