The Court of Seville rejects the request of Marta del Castillo’s parents to clarify Cuco’s acquittal sentence

Now the First Section of the Court of Seville, as reported by the press office of the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia, has rejected the petitions of the private accusation exercised by the parents of Marta in relation to the sentence that acquitted the two people – mother and son – accused of a crime of false testimony in the trial for the murder of the young woman.

The court agrees that It is not necessary to clarify the sentence issued on June 25, 2024, requested by the private prosecution by not appreciating any obscure concept, nor any omission or rectification of any involuntary material or arithmetic error, nor complementing it.

This resolution comes after the lawyer for Marta del Castillo’s parents, Inmaculada Torres, presented a document in which she requested Section I of the Court for a “complement” to her judicial resolution, where it was stipulated that both defendants acknowledged in the trial held against them by Criminal Court number seven both the facts contained in the accusation document of the Prosecutor’s Office, and the facts of the accusation documents of the family as a private accusation and of the Victims and Justice association as a popular accusation.

It must be remembered that in the initial proceedings, testimony was deduced against the accused for his statements made at trial, for having denied having been at the home of Leo XIII on the late night of January 24, 2022, and for saying that late night andHe was with friends in time slots that they had denied, going to his home around 11:30 p.m. on January 24, 2011, where his mother saw him around 1:30 or 2:00 a.m. on January 25, 2011.

The origin

The First Section of the Seville Court acquitted Francisco Javier García and his mother of the crime of false testimony for which Criminal Court number seven initially sentenced both to two years in prison for their statements in the trial held in 2011 against adults investigated for said crime. The lawyer for Marta del Castillo’s parents, Immaculate Torrespresented a document to the Court requesting a “complement” to its judicial resolution, stipulating that both defendants acknowledged at trial both the facts contained in the Prosecutor’s indictment and the facts in the Prosecutor’s indictments. family as a private accusation and the Victims and Justice association as a popular accusation.

In that sense, the First Section explains in its order that “it was the lawyers of the accused who did not oppose the fact that the private accusation document was not read, which was requested by their defense on repeated occasions, because The facts were the same as those of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and with this their defenses assumed both accusation documents”, although “since the private accusation document was not read in the plenary session, this meant that they were not included in the proven facts, without prejudice to later in the sentence” if such an extreme were “indicated.”

«That is why it is not necessary to complete the proven facts in the sense interested by the party,” states the First Section of the Court, which does not consider this request “relevant” to the matter.

In that same sense, when the representation of Marta’s parents insisted that the accused “acknowledged the facts contained in the provisional conclusions of the private accusation and the popular accusation”, the Court alleges in the same way that “The sentence echoes this recognition of facts and the insistence of the defense lawyer that her brief had been read”, but “these circumstances should not be included in the proven facts because, despite the fact that the private and popular accusation briefs essentially coincide with the of the Prosecutor’s Office, there was no reading of those, and the fact that they were assumed by the defense of the accused we consider should be the subject of the resolution of the merits and not of the proven facts.

fallacious facts

In the acquittal sentence, according to the Court, they are “expressed as fallacious facts those recognized and reflected in the accusation document of the Public Prosecutor’s Office that they assumed and that included the resolution and assumed as proven the sentence of the first instance (of the Criminal Court) and that in essence coincide with those of the other accusations, explaining in the essence of the fallacy, in that testimony was deduced against the accused (El Cuco) for his statements made in the oral trial, having denied having been at the home of (Miguel Carcaño on León XIII Street) on the late night of January 24 (2009), and for saying that that late night he was with friends at times that they had denied, going to his home around 11:30 p.m., when his mother saw him on the 1.30 or 2.00 hours on January 25th.

«For this reason, it is not appropriate to supplement the facts proven by adding the facts recognized by the accused, as the party is interested, including those of the lower court ruling insofar as they are facts not controversialsince we do not consider such mention relevant,” responds the First Section.

And regarding a replacement of the paragraph of the sentence where it appears that Cuco “acknowledged the facts that were read to him, those of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, not those of the private and popular accusations, despite the fact that the defense lawyer requested it.” , although in essence, except in the particular of civil liability”; The Court considers that it is “nuances of writing that should not be doneas there is no obscure concept, nor one that needs to be complemented”, as it is not “relevant” either.

Furthermore, in their brief, the representation of Marta del Castillo’s parents requested that an alleged “error” be corrected in the sentence in relation to the description of the cuckoo situation when he testified as a witness in the trial held in 2011 against the adults accused of said crime, which resulted in the conviction of Carcaño alone.

In detail, the representation of Marta’s family demanded that it be reflected that at that time, Francisco Javier García «I was finishing fulfilling» the measure imposed by the Juvenile Court for covering up the crime, had already satisfied the closed confinement regime and, therefore, what he declared before that court would not affect him.

“He was not a typical witness”

«We do not know what type of error this refers to. the part, since the one that the accused declared being free It can be seen perfectly in the recording images of the trial held in the Seventh Section, linked to the case, and it is the information that we were interested in highlighting, as well as the sentence of minors on appeal a few days ago that had been notified to their lawyer by the Court when he testified as a witness, so these were the significant data for the issuance of the resolution, and which appear in the existing documentation in the case,” replies the First Section, which does not detect “any error to correct.”

For this reason, the court decides that «There is no room for clarification of the sentence handed down.either in the form of correction or complement in the intended manner, by not appreciating any obscure concept, nor any omission or rectification of any involuntary material or arithmetic error, nor complementing it.

At the time of its acquittal pronouncement despite the acknowledgment of the accused’s facts, the First Section of the Court indicated that El Cuco «must necessarily have been called in the case of adults as a witness», but specifying that «we are not facing a typical witnesssince he is no longer a co-accused, nor an accused, since a final sentence has been handed down for the same facts of prosecution, but, by virtue of the Plenary Session, he is summoned as a witness.

On the other hand, it indicated that his mother “did not mislead” the court in her statement, because “the falsity of the statement must fall on essential aspects for the purposes of the prosecution and not on inconsequential issues”, which “is what happens with the accused.”