State v. Bunag

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-SEP-2025
08:27 AM
Dkt. 74 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALDEN BUNAG, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Alden Bunag (Bunag) challenges his
consecutive sentence. We affirm.
Bunag appeals the July 10, 2024 "Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry" (Judgment), entered by
the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court). 1 Bunag
was convicted and sentenced as follows: twenty years of
imprisonment for Count 1, Continuous Sexual Assault of a Minor

1 The Honorable Faʻauuga L. Toʻotoʻo presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Under the Age of Fourteen Years (Continuous Sexual Assault), for
engaging in three or more acts of sexual penetration or sexual
contact with his then-thirteen-year-old student while he was a
teacher at Ilima Intermediate School; ten years for Count 3,
Promoting Child Abuse in the Second Degree (Promoting Child
Abuse 2nd), for disseminating in an online chatroom the video
recordings he made of his sexual assaults of the minor; and five
years for Count 4, Promoting Child Abuse in the Third Degree
(Promoting Child Abuse 3rd), for knowingly possessing numerous
child pornography videos and images, stored on his computer and
phone.
Bunag's single point of error contends the Circuit
Court erred in ordering sentences for Count 1 (Continuous Sexual
Assault) and Count 3 (Promoting Child Abuse 2nd) to be served
consecutively, "without articulating the requisite sentencing
factors and analysis" to justify the consecutive sentence, and
failing to "provide sufficient independent grounds to impose
each consecutive sentence."
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Bunag's
point of error as follows.
At the July 10, 2024 sentencing hearing, the Circuit
Court imposed a single consecutive sentence, ordering the ten-
year sentence in Count 3 to run consecutively to the twenty-year
sentence in Count 1. The five-year sentence in Count 4 was run
concurrently with Counts 1 and 3. Bunag timely appealed the
July 10, 2024 Judgment. On August 12, 2024, the Circuit Court
entered its "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law [(FOFs/COLs)],
and Order Granting State of Hawaii's Oral Motion for Consecutive
Terms of Imprisonment."

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Bunag argues that the Circuit Court "did not
articulate or explain its rationale for each separate,
individual, consecutive sentence," as required by State v.
Bautista, 153 Hawaiʻi 284, 291, 535 P.3d 1029, 1036 (2023). 2
Bunag also claims the Circuit Court "did not consider all the
factors" in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-606 because the
record only shows that "[t]he court considered the relationship
between [Bunag] and the complainant and the seriousness of the
offense . . . [and] does not reflect that the court considered
any other factors in imposing the consecutive sentences."
Under HRS § 706-668.5(1) (2014 & Supp. 2024), a
sentencing court has discretion to impose consecutive or
concurrent sentences. We review a trial court's imposition of
sentence for "whether the court committed plain and manifest
abuse of discretion in its decision." State v. Barrios,
139 Hawaiʻi 321, 328, 389 P.3d 916, 923 (2016) (citation
omitted).
In determining whether to impose consecutive or
concurrent sentences, a court must consider the general
sentencing factors set forth in HRS § 706-606, 3 and the "court

2 In Bautista, the supreme court vacated the imposition of three
consecutive sentences because the circuit court offered no rationale for each
consecutive sentence. 153 Hawaiʻi at 291, 535 P.3d at 1036.

3 HRS § 706-606 (2014), entitled "Factors to be considered in
imposing a sentence," requires the sentencing court to consider the following
factors "in determining the particular sentence to be imposed":

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
and characteristics of the defendant;

(2) The need for the sentence imposed:

(a) To reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
respect for law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense;

(b) To afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

must state its reasons as to why a consecutive sentence rather
than a concurrent one was required." State v. Hussein,
122 Hawaiʻi 495, 509, 229 P.3d 313, 327 (2010). However, "[t]he
weight to be given the factors set forth in HRS § 706-606 in
imposing sentence is a matter generally left to the discretion
of the sentencing court, taking into consideration the
circumstances of each case." State v. Kong, 131 Hawaiʻi 94, 101,
315 P.3d 720, 727 (2013) (citation omitted). Moreover, "[a]
sentencing court is not required to articulate and explain its
conclusions with respect to every factor listed in HRS § 706-
606." Id. at 102, 315 P.3d at 728 (citation omitted). "Absent
clear evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that a sentencing
court will have considered all factors before imposing
concurrent or consecutive terms of imprisonment under HRS § 706-
606." Id. (citation and brackets omitted).
Here, the record reflects the Circuit Court's
consideration and application of the HRS § 706-606 factors it
deemed pertinent to this case. The Circuit Court considered
"[t]he nature and circumstances of the offense" under HRS § 706-
606(1), the "seriousness" of Bunag's offenses and the need "to
provide just punishment" under section (2)(a), and specifically
concluded that:

(c) To protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant; and

(d) To provide the defendant with needed educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner;

(3) The kinds of sentences available; and

(4) The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

[Bunag] took advantage of his position of trust as an
employee of Ilima Intermediate School to commit these
offenses against the vulnerable Complainant. [Bunag]
sexually assaulted the Complainant in what was supposed to
be a safe space – the Complainant's school. Not only did
[Bunag] repeatedly subject the Complainant to sexual abuse,
[Bunag] recorded it and disseminated it to another person.
The Complainant has to live with constant fear and worry
over who has seen this video . . . This factor weighs in
favor a [sic] consecutive term of imprisonment.

COL 3. The Circuit Court noted that Bunag "was the teacher";
Bunag "had control over his action" and "control over . . . his
students[,]" including the Complainant; and Complainant "was
looking to [Bunag] for emotional support, educational support,
not ruin [of Complainant's] life." The record also shows that
the Circuit Court considered "the history and characteristics of
the defendant," by noting,

[Bunag] led a law-abiding life before committing these
crimes involving this Complainant. However, [Bunag] also
grew up with the benefit of a supportive family and access
to education. Although [Bunag] and his supporters
characterize [Bunag] as having positive interactions with
children, his actions in the instant case speak otherwise.

COL 4. See HRS § 706-606(1). We presume that the Circuit Court
considered all of the applicable factors under HRS § 706-606.
See Kong, 131 Hawaiʻi at 102, 315 P.3d at 728.
Here, the record also reflects the Circuit Court
explained its rationale for the single consecutive sentence it
imposed, noting the separate and distinct harms to Complainant
from the Continuous Sexual Assault offense in Count 1, and from
the Promoting Child Abuse 2nd offense in Count 3 due to the
"constant fear and worry over" Bunag's dissemination of the
videos of Bunag's sexual assaults of Complainant. See Bautista,
153 Hawaiʻi at 291, 535 P.3d at 1036 (requiring that a "court's
rationale must be tethered to each consecutive sentence"); State
v. Lavoie, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 3826192, at *5 (Haw.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

App. Aug. 15, 2024) (SDO) (affirming imposition of a "single"
consecutive sentence of twenty years for Manslaughter and twenty
years for Carrying or Use of Firearm in the Commission of a
Separate Felony), aff'd in part, 156 Hawaiʻi 250, 573 P.3d 633
(2025); State v. Sorensen, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2025 WL 1250522,
at *11 (Haw. App. Apr. 30, 2025) (mem. op.) (vacating the trial
court's imposition of three twenty-year consecutive sentences
for a total of sixty years because the court "failed to explain
its rationale for imposing each consecutive sentence").
We conclude the Circuit Court sufficiently stated its
reasons for imposing a single consecutive sentence, and the
sentence was within its discretion. See Barrios, 139 Hawaiʻi at
328, 389 P.3d at 923.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the July 10, 2024
Judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, September 30, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Ernesto M. Ganaden
Chief Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Loren J. Thomas,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
City and County of Honolulu
Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

6