Filed 6/18/21 P. v. Pangan CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, B302799 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA146467) v. RAMIL MAGLAQUI PANGAN, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Raul A. Sahagun, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Tracy A. Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Heather M. Clark, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________ Ramil Maglaqui Pangan appeals from his judgment of conviction of sexual penetration of an unconscious person (Pen. Code,1 § 289, subd. (d)) and attempted oral copulation of an unconscious person (§§ 664, subd. (a), 288a, subd. (f)). Pangan was convicted of the offenses at a second trial after the jury at the first trial was unable to reach a verdict. On retrial, the prosecution relied on evidence showing that, when confronted with the allegation that he had sexually assaulted the victim, Pangan did not deny it, but rather apologized to the victim for his conduct. On appeal, Pangan contends the trial court erroneously excluded proffered defense evidence that (1) Pangan said to call the police and have the victim examined by a doctor when he was first told of the allegation, and (2) Pangan’s wife directed him to apologize to the victim even if he was not guilty. The evidence of the wife’s complete statement to apologize was admitted at the first trial, but excluded at the second. We conclude the trial court erred in excluding the proffered evidence, and the error was not harmless. We accordingly reverse and remand for a new trial. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 The Prosecution Case Pangan and Vanessa D., the victim in this case, were part of a close-knit group of friends. Vanessa D. met Pangan through her boyfriend, Carlos C., who worked at a restaurant where Pangan was the head chef and Pangan’s wife, Johanna Pangan,3 was the manager. Stephen C., Emily B., and a man named R.J. also worked at the restaurant. The group regularly socialized together outside of work, often at the Pangan residence. Vanessa D. and Carlos C. were particularly close to the Pangans and visited their home several nights a week. On other occasions, Carlos C. would drop Vanessa D. off at the Pangan residence in the morning, and Pangan would drive her to her workplace in the afternoon. Vanessa D. regarded Pangan and Johanna as …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals