Villanueva Morales, Joel v. Ex-Parte, KLCE202500339

Joel Villanueva Morales was convicted of certain offenses in Puerto Rico, including violations under the Penal Code and a now-repealed Weapons Law.
He was sentenced to fines and a suspended prison sentence, which he served.
After completing his sentence and maintaining good conduct, Villanueva successfully petitioned for the removal of his convictions from the official criminal record (antecedentes penales).
Subsequently, he moved to have his associated mugshots and fingerprints removed from police records, arguing no legal basis for their retention after the record expungement.
The trial court denied this request, holding that return or deletion is only allowed in cases of acquittal or gubernatorial pardon, and not after conviction and expungement.
Villanueva appealed this denial via a petition for certiorari, which is a discretionary appellate review.

Issue	Villanueva's Argument	Estado's Argument	Held
Should mugshots and fingerprints be deleted after expungement of conviction?	Once convictions are expunged, continued state retention is unwarranted, especially for less serious offenses.	Statutes only allow deletion/return of these records in cases of acquittal or pardon, not mere expungement.	No deletion is required; retention is legally permitted.
Does expungement eliminate the basis for retaining identification data?	Yes; expungement removes stigma, so ID records should also be deleted.	No, as the law distinguishes expungement of conviction from deletion of arrest/ID records.	Expungement does not mandate deletion of mugshots/fingerprints.
Is there a constitutional right to have such data removed post-expungement?	Continued retention violates privacy and exceeds state's legitimate interest.	Privacy rights are limited once a person is convicted and validly sentenced; state interest in retention prevails.	No constitutional violation; privacy expectations are limited post-conviction.
Does Law 143-2014 require deletion of photos/prints?	Argues that the law does not prohibit deletion and should be read to allow it.	Law only mandates confidentiality, not deletion or expungement of ID records.	Law requires records to be confidential, not deleted.

Archevali v. E.L.A., 110 DPR 767 (P.R. 1981) (approved police practice of taking fingerprints and photographs as routine for accused persons)
Pueblo v. Torres Albertorio, 115 DPR 128 (P.R. 1984) (holding that only those acquitted or pardoned may seek return of identification records)
Arroyo v. Rattan Specialties, Inc., 117 DPR 35 (P.R. 1986) (privacy/interests in personal records are fundamental, but not absolute)