A Guam service member and his girlfriend have been charged after allegedly faking an armed robbery.
Daniel Thomas Casil Taitano, 22, and his girlfriend, Madison Taijeron Quenga, 18, are charged with unsworn falsification carrying a special allegation of a crime against the community, making a false report, and conspiracy to make a false report. All are misdemeanors.
Charges were filed after Taitana allegedly lost his military identification card, which turned into a criminal case after he and Quenga allegedly fabricated an armed robbery.
The alleged motive was not financial gain or an insurance claim. He reportedly believed lying to police would be easier than being “smoked” by his military command.
Robbery Story Falls Apart
Taitano and Quenga reported that they had been robbed at gunpoint near Tarzan Falls earlier this month, according to KUAM, citing court documents.
Investigators reportedly noticed inconsistencies in their accounts. During a follow-up interview, Quenga allegedly admitted the robbery had not happened and told police, “No, sir. I’m sorry, it wasn’t my idea.”
Quenga said Taitano had lost his wallet, which contained the Common Access Card (CAC) he required to enter a military installation for drill. According to court documents, Taitano proposed creating a story for his command because “it was easier to lie than be smoked.”
Taitano later acknowledged lying to police and involving Quenga.
Guam law separately defines the conduct underlying those charges. Section 52.30 of Title 9 prohibits knowingly using a written false statement to mislead a public servant. Section 55.25 makes it a misdemeanor to report an offense to law enforcement while knowing it did not occur.
A Guam misdemeanor generally carries a maximum term of up to one year, although the sentence in any case depends on the convictions, criminal history, and the court’s sentencing decisions.
A Lost CAC is a Security Report, Not Automatically a Crime
The CAC is more than a photo identification card. It authenticates personnel for military installations, computers and other Defense Department systems. CACs contain computer chips, unlike the similar-looking identification cards issued to many retirees and dependents.
Defense Department guidance requires personnel to report a lost or stolen CAC to their command, security office or sponsor. The card’s digital certificates are then revoked to prevent unauthorized network use. The cardholder must present documentation showing that the loss was reported before receiving a replacement.
A police report can serve as that documentation, but it is not the only option. Installation guidance also permits confirmation from a security office, supervisor or CAC sponsor.
The Army has explored wearable authentication devices as possible CAC alternatives, as reported in 2019, but current Defense Department procedures continue to rely heavily on the cards.
Duty Status Determines Which Military Law Applies
The Guam National Guard is part of the U.S. National Guard system, with both territorial and federal responsibilities.
Guam’s governor commands it when it is not in federal service. During that service, Guam has its own military justice code, modeled on the UCMJ, to govern members in covered duty statuses.
When federalized, Guard members are subject to the federal UCMJ. Regular active-duty personnel stationed in Guam also remain subject to the UCMJ, and being on the island does not place them under the Guam Guard’s code.
Federal reservists can fall under UCMJ jurisdiction during inactive-duty training and specified travel and intervals surrounding it.
For Guam Guard members in covered non-federal duty statuses, the territorial code prohibits knowingly making false official statements with intent to deceive and losing military property willfully or through neglect.
Its general article covers criminal offenses and conduct that discredits Guam’s military forces. The code also preserves civilian prosecution in Guam’s Superior Court, subject to constitutional restrictions. Military discipline, therefore, does not automatically replace the civilian criminal case.
Taitano’s branch, component and duty status remain unconfirmed. KUAM reported that he needed his CAC to attend drill, but that alone does not establish which military code governed him when the alleged conduct occurred.
If federal jurisdiction exists, Article 107 prohibits knowingly making false official statements with intent to deceive. But in United States v. Spicer, the military’s highest court held that lying to civilian police does not automatically satisfy that offense.
The statement must have an actual military connection when made, such as a clear and direct relationship to the speaker’s official duties. Later military involvement is insufficient by itself. =
Submitting a fabricated account to a command would require a separate analysis from the initial police statement.
Getting ‘Smoked’ Has Legal Limits
In military slang, getting “smoked” generally refers to strenuous physical exercise imposed as corrective training.
Army policy permits brief exercises for minor indiscipline, but the training must address the deficiency and cannot become hazing, bullying or unlawful punishment.
Nothing in the publicly reported allegations establishes that Taitano’s command had threatened improper treatment. Even if he expected an unpleasant correction, that fear would not excuse a knowingly false robbery report.
Reporting the missing CAC could have produced counseling, replacement paperwork or lawful discipline. The alleged alternative brought police, prosecutors and potentially military authorities into the case.
