A Mother's Plea
If it were your child, what would you do?
On April 1, 2023, a mother’s worst nightmare became a painful and crippling reality for me. My only son, Jaren, had passed away. That morning, both my daughter and I heard from him. As usual, he sent photos to his sister of what he was doing. He and another person went to a coffee shop, bought swim shorts for a barbecue planned for the next day, and spent the afternoon cleaning his apartment. I was sanding down some chair stools, as I had promised him I’d paint them black for his place – so I only texted him back instead. It was a typical day.
​​​
It was late in the evening when my daughter called me after she had received a call from my son’s landlord. I was in complete shock. I didn’t even realize she said the words, ‘he died, Mom.’ I cannot imagine how my daughter felt, having to hear about her brother’s death and then share it with me.
​
(I was on my way to a rosary when an excruciating headache hit me, which was unusual since I don’t often get one. A few days later, I realized that it was around the same time as my son’s estimated time of death.)
From that moment on, everything seemed to blur in a haze of numbness, even as I spoke with the landlord to understand what had happened. I learned that my son had already been taken by ambulance to the hospital - alone. I just wanted to see him. I needed to see him. I rushed to the hospital, only to be told by a nurse that I couldn’t see my son, not even identify him. I stood in the hospital’s parking lot, numb, as my family began arriving. Not one police officer showed up. I was forced to go home without any information, unbearably shattered and in disbelief.
On the day of and days after, the police did not call or visit, nor respond to my calls. The only person providing information at that time was the landlord, who was present while the scene was being processed.
​
This ‘open letter’ is a mother’s plea for Justice for Jaren.
The Guam Police Department's (GPD) mission is to protect and serve all individuals. Their core ‘non-negotiable’ values of integrity, accountability, cooperation, and respect for human life are to be upheld and be the ‘foundation’ of its policies, goals, and operations – ensuring the community receives fair and just treatment. However, GPD’s actions and inactions indicate otherwise. My right to information regarding my son’s death only resulted in GPD’s avoidance, misinformation, unaccountability, indifference, disregard, and conflict.
​
Do I need to ask Chief Stephen Ignacio and officers P.G. Corpuz, A.J. Arriola (Supervisor on Duty), E. Mondia, J. Perez, J. Gogo, E. Barcinas, B.J. Duenas, E.J. Orallo, J.K. Blas, P.C. Crisostomo, J.A. Gabutin, T.S. Parinasan:
If it were your child, what would you do?
Day two demonstrated how GPD continues to handle our pursuit for answers – disregarding my rights to even basic information and updates on any developments in my son’s case and for transparency in the handling of their investigation. I contacted the Hågatña precinct early that morning to get any information and to inquire why I wasn’t notified about my son’s death. The only response the officer told me was to contact another officer, P.G. Corpuz, during his shift – 6 pm to 6 am. I complied even though it was right before my son’s rosary because I needed answers. When I spoke with Officer Corpuz, his lack of empathy only increased my distress. He said nothing beyond telling me I needed to go to the precinct and didn't offer to come to my home.
​
That early Sunday morning, driven by a need to secure my son's belongings, despite being in emotional turmoil, I contacted the landlord for access to his apartment. In less than 15 minutes, he received clearance from GPD, though my brother-in-law had already managed to retrieve my son’s pitbull the night before. Later, I learned that GPD wasn’t even aware the dog was in the apartment. In just one day, my family and I emptied my son's apartment – a decision I now deeply regret. I should have seen the room as it was (before the 'scene' was cleaned), carefully documented every room, from top to bottom. One promising insight from forensic science is that it is virtually impossible to completely eliminate all traces of evidence.
​
Day three: After the autopsy was completed, the Medical Examiner, Dr. Jeffrey Nine, requested more information from GPD – an indication that the autopsy did not align with GPD’s conclusions. Instead of reassessing and reevaluating, GPD doubled down on their narrative.
(GPD released and left the scene in under two hours, quicker than it takes to clear a traffic accident with no injuries.)
​
Day four: I received my first call from GPD. Detective E. Mondia asked me to come in for an interview without any discussion about my son’s case or an apology for the police not informing me of my son’s death. I asked that my brother-in-law accompany me for support as I was unable to drive. My thoughts were scattered, my vision blurred, and I was flooded with more emotions I didn't know I could feel. Officer Mondia told me to come alone. Completely bewildered, I questioned why this was my first contact and why I couldn't have someone with me for support. (I was at a place of business, so others witnessed how I went from feeling relieved to get a call from GPD to being completely upset.) Officer Mondia’s borderline intimidation and raised voice forced me to speak up. Trembling, I asked why he was aggressively speaking to me. His reply was that was how he usually speaks. I attended that interview with my brother-in-law, during which Officer Mondia was defensive and retorted that I must have misinterpreted his tone due to my being a grieving mother. After the interview, it was painfully clear that GPD had its narrative, with a clear investigative bias, and that I was viewed as nothing more than an adversary.​
​
Earlier that day, I learned that the only person known to be with my son when he died had walked out of his apartment and down three flights of stairs. Instead of waiting at the front parking area for the Guam Police Department (GPD) or the Guam Fire Department (GFD) to arrive, this person left the gated complex and crossed the street. This individual had been with my son since the evening before, attending a gathering with his friends and staying with him throughout that Saturday.
​
One of the two people this individual called was in my son's apartment for about five minutes before GPD arrived. Yet, none of the three people present at the scene reached out to me. Instead, they chose to approach me at my son's funeral mass, signing the guestbook with their name, their business, and a two-line message that ended with, "Lord, have mercy on his soul!" It was clear that they wanted their message to be seen, as it was written unusually large, taking up four lines. But I began to question their intent behind adding their business name. Was it a way to ensure I knew they were well-known in the community?
​
Also that day, this person texted my daughter that ‘the police were particular about not contacting your family until after the investigation.’ Chief Stephen Ignacio later told me that this individual had retained counsel. He shared this detail to justify why they did not further question this person. (Having a lawyer does not automatically prevent someone from being interviewed; rather, the lawyer ensures that the person’s rights are protected during the interview process). While it might be standard practice for the police to make such a statement, they did not communicate this to me as well. This raises concerns that the statement could have been said to cover up any investigative bias. They never explained what efforts they made to verify the person’s statement.​​​​ Typically, police procedures usually involve verifying witness statements through methods like cross-referencing evidence, interviewing others, reviewing surveillance, checking alibis, and conducting polygraph or GSR tests. Investigators also follow up on specific details for consistency. Without these methods, the investigation's integrity is compromised. GPD failed to give me clear and transparent information about their investigative protocols and the limitations that prevented further action. Instead of being open and fair, their evasive and defensive responses could be seen as failures in their duty.
​
On day 12, just one day before Jaren’s funeral, I was finally allowed to see my son. Had I been given the chance to identify him on day one, I would have already confirmed what my mother’s intuition had told me all along – that his death was a homicide. The location of the gunshot wound – an extremely rare, highly unusual and atypical site for a suicide – raises serious suspicion and demands a thorough investigation. Cases like my son’s are statistically uncommon compared to other firearm-related deaths.
​​​
On day 32, the day before my son’s 28th birthday, Detective Perez told me that once the report was finished, they would be able to explain everything to me. He further stated that ‘we try to leave no stone unturned and find out what happened.’​ Yet, despite meeting with Chief Ignacio twice, I was left with no answers, more questions, and a clear message that there was nothing more he could do for us. It took the Chief three months to confirm a follow-up meeting, which he had promised would take place a week after June 28, 2023. I clearly remember his defensiveness when I didn't express sympathy for his reasoning behind the lack of response to my request for a second meeting. Stunned by the Chief's excuse and agitation, I simply stared at him and replied, “My son died.”
​
To make matters worse, it wasn't until September 2023 that I learned through Vital Statistics that my son's final death certificate had been certified and available to me since July 2023.
Manner of death: UNDETERMINED
​
With the medical examiner ruling the manner of death as ‘undetermined,’ it should have prompted GPD to conduct further investigations. An ‘undetermined’ ruling indicates that the cause of death is unclear based on the available evidence. This uncertainty should warrant a more in-depth investigation by GPD to collect additional evidence, clarify the circumstances surrounding Jaren’s death, and determine whether further action is needed.
One year later, on April 1, 2024, two individuals I had previously named to the detectives – who could speak to my son’s state of mind both the day of and the day before his death – were finally contacted for an interview. While this may have been little more than a formality, given that it wasn’t done a year ago, their statements directly contradicted GPD's narrative, which likely rendered them ineffective. In fact, one of the individuals mentioned that the officer seemed more focused on determining whether my son was a ‘very in-shape, happy guy’ or a ‘ticking time bomb.’
​
On April 12, 2024, during a Legislative Roundtable Hearing with Senator Chris Barnett, Dr. Nine stated that one case that involved a gunshot wound represented a discrepancy between what he thought happened and what the scene investigation may or may not have indicated. “We just came to the conclusion that since it wasn’t really investigated properly to my desires, I called it undetermined for the manner."​
​
In June 2024, I reached out to the seasoned officer who had been asked to review the case file. While he agreed with the medical examiner’s finding of undetermined, citing a lack of information in the file, he repeatedly emphasized that he wasn’t at the scene and didn’t want to ‘overstep’ anyone. However, he stressed the critical importance of preserving the scene in cases like Jaren's, acknowledging that it was not properly preserved and was prematurely released that evening. He stated that their protocol is to not release the scene until after the autopsy is completed. When I asked for advice, he suggested I hire a private investigator. I then questioned why he wouldn’t state any of these concerns if the Chief had specifically requested his review. Once again, he reiterated that he didn’t want to ‘overstep’ anyone.​​​​​
​
On April 18, 2024, KUAM asked the Police Chief and Post-Mortem Commission Member:
“Do you think that people have gotten away with murder?”
​
Chief Ignacio’s response: “I am not tracking any unsolved homicides or any deaths that are suspicious that either we were not properly notified to investigate or that we have not properly investigated.” He continues, “Sometimes, the medical examiner will say, I don’t believe your findings support a suicide, and I think maybe it’s a homicide. And we’ll tell him we don’t have any evidence that this is a homicide. There is no suspect in this case, there’s no findings to support that this is a homicide, and that’s where we come to an impasse, and that’s why in some cases, it is ruled as undetermined.”
​
To Chief Stephen Ignacio: In September 21, 2023, you stated to me, in front of your investigators, Dr. Nine, and my attorney, that there is no evidence either way. You have the authority to reopen the case and conduct a proper evaluation. You have the authority to explain how the one person known to be at the scene is ruled out as a suspect. It's clear that the investigation was not thorough and was closed prematurely, raising concerns about its integrity.
If it were your child, what would you do?
​
Dr. Nine told me in person that his concern was not whether my son's death was accidental or a suicide, but whether it was a homicide. He was both surprised and disappointed that the police never considered this possibility, and expressed frustration that some deaths, including my son's, were not fully investigated. He expressed his sincere regret. It seemed GPD was insistent on labeling it a suicide, which I believe ultimately influenced Dr. Nine’s decision to rule the manner of death undetermined. He made it clear that his hands were tied, as he was never called to the scene and had he been, ‘we would have had a much different result.’
​
(Homicide, in the context of manner of death, simply refers to one person’s actions leading to another’s death, whether intentional or unintentional, and does not automatically imply criminal intent or guilt.)
​
The Chief claimed that, due to the lack of evidence for homicide and the fact that the individual had retained counsel, there was nothing they could do. Frustrated by the police’s refusal to adhere to established policies and standards designed to inform and support the family, we conducted extensive research on investigative procedures (a request for which I have made to GPD for their Standard Operating Procedures, but received no response) and forensic practices.
I also submitted multiple FOIA requests to obtain any relevant reports and documents. Each time, GPD responded with excuses citing § 10108. Limitation on Right of Inspection, even after GPD requested an extension. If GPD is confident in its findings, why the repeated reluctance to provide me with this information?
​
After facing repeated obstacles in getting information from GPD, I turned to Senator Chris Barnett, then Chair of Public Safety, for assistance. I am grateful that he was able to get Dr. Nine on record. His office recently submitted a FOIA request to GPD, but the department blatantly ignored the law, even after asking for an extension. Despite multiple attempts to get answers from Chief Ignacio, Senator Barnett was met with the same response as me: no information was released.
​
On April 30, 2024, during an Oversight Hearing, Chief Ignacio publicly promised to be accessible, saying the community could reach him by phone, email, or in person. He assured us of his commitment to community engagement, listening, and responding.
​
Yet, my experience these past two years tells a different story.
I made one final attempt to have a discussion with the Chief. On January 29, 2025, I requested a meeting. I followed up on January 31, only to be told he was off-island, but would return the next day. I reached out again on February 4, asking who could help if he was unavailable. No response. And on February 14, I followed up once more – still no answer on the Chief’s availability.
So here I stand. I am forced to send this letter out into the world because GPD has failed at every turn. They have failed to do their job on April 1, 2023 and continue to fail to uphold the values of integrity, accountability, cooperation, and respect for human life – all lives.
Do I need to ask Chief Stephen Ignacio and all the officers involved in my son’s case:
If it were your child, what would you do?
​
GPD failed Jaren and our family. They have refused to explain how they managed to properly investigate Jaren's death in the one hour and forty-seven minutes spent processing the scene. If GPD truly followed protocol, meaning they employed scientific and forensic methods, they would have: (1) secured the scene and preserved all potential evidence, (2) reconstructed the events leading up to Jaren’s death, and (3) accurately determined what transpired. Throughout our ongoing efforts, we’ve raised questions about details that simply don’t make logical sense. GPD's lack of accountability has only deepened the emotional toll on our family, hindering our ability to grieve. My son was killed, even if the reason remains unclear. The police are sworn to protect and serve everyone in the community, ensuring fair and just treatment – not acting in their own interests.
​
I ask the community, If it were your child, what would you do?
This injustice is not just a personal loss – it creates a ripple effect, eroding our trust in the Guam Police Department and in the system that should protect us all.​
Patience. It will be two years on April 1, 2025, since my son was taken from me, his sister, his family, and this world.
Patience. They fail to understand the depth of a mother’s determination.
