The Criminal Chamber of the National Court has agreed to the final archive of the case against businessman Javier López Madrid, the retired commissioner José Manuel Villarejo and his partner Rafael Redondo for the alleged commission that the former made to the police to harass the Dr. María Elisa Pinto due to a personal conflict. It is a cause other than that of harassment and aggression he allegedly committed against the woman the commissioner under the orders of López Madrid. The National Court only investigated the hiring of a public official in the year, Villarejo, by the employer.
In a car, collected by Europa Press, the magistrates of the Fourth Section leave without effect the Oral trial opening order and give the reason to the defense of the businessman, ensuring that Dr. Pinto’s lawyer is not entitled to accuse for a crime of bribery, and since there is no other accusation in the case.
The case of López Madrid’s contract to Villarejo was a piece opened The nuclear fact, the harassment strategy, coercion and the orchestrated aggression allegedly by López Madrid and for which the Prosecutor’s Office asks for the police and businessman thirteen years in prison.
For the magistrates of the National Court, the solution could not be “being the one requested by the defense of López Madrid”, which was to decree “the nullity of the actions, specifically of the order to open oral trial, and the dismissal and dismissal and Archive of the actions, lacking legitimation the private accusation, unique that interested the conviction ”of the defendants.
This decision comes after, last November, the National Court agreed to suspend the trial that was going to start against the three defendants. He did, specifically, due to the literacy of Dr. Pinto, announcing the court that would resolve “the previous issues in advance to the celebration of the new trial.”
Already then, sources of the defense of López Madrid pointed out that, in the face of previous issues, they would argue that the private, unique accusation that accuses in this procedure, was not enough to bring someone to trial when it comes to crimes of “interest Diffuse ”, since in the event that there had been that bribery, no particular interest was injured, but, in any case, the General of the Administration of Justice.
According to the car, the defense of López Madrid claimed that there was no oral trial to open “to the extent that the Fiscal Ministry interests the dismissal, there is no popular accusation and the particular accusation does not hold legitimation either as offended or as injured”.
In addition, he added to this that in this separate piece of tandem he was going to prosecute if López Madrid “incurred the commission of an active bribery crime” and that Pinto “appeared invoking an alleged particular accusation condition by writing of October 2 of 2019 ”. “This personation was based not on this procedure, but in relation to other different pending judicial processes (DP 487/2014) of the Court of Instruction number 39 of Madrid,” added the defense.
And he explained that Pinto did not hold the condition or injured by the crime of bribery or that of offended, because “these cases of crimes against the public administration is not feasible, the particular accusation, but only the popular one”, which we held until He gave up exercising it in December 2022 in the case.
The Court enters to assess the claim of the defense of López Madrid and recalls that the Prosecutor’s Office effectively interested in June 2022 during the instruction “The dismissal of the proceedings, not only because there are not enough indications of the commission of the crime of bribery, but because they were already the subject of judicial investigation (…) in another different case. ”
And after substantiating his decision on various previous sentences of the Supreme Court, he emphasizes that “the decision to expuls from the process of the private accusation, at this procedural moment, after having been held as such throughout the instruction and intermediate phases of the same, it is not harmful to the right to its judicial protection, nor can it be described as extemporaneous or surprise. ”
In fact, remember that Pinto’s own defense at a given time “and realizing that it was a matter at least controversial” the fact that he accused for the crime of bribery, “subsidiarily interested the personation as popular accusation, to avoid your expulsion. ”
On this possibility, the court makes it clear that “the exercise of popular action is not appropriate for the defense of individualizable or individualized legal situations, but for the defense of supra -individual interests, whether collective or diffuse.”
In addition, he mentions the procedure that is followed in the Madrid court temporary of the facts ”.
And therefore, “being, at least, much of the facts mentioned in this procedure juxtaposed with the investigation followed before the Court of Instruction number 39 of Madrid (…) No material helplessness causes this expulsion of the procedure in its quality of particular accusation ”.
In addition, the AN explains that the anticipated closure of the criminal process “in addition to not causing defenseless pilgrimage that would still have to endure in the present case, due to the impossibility of pointing out the oral trial on nearby dates. ”
Adds to this that there is a “difficulty to achieve a condemnatory hypothesis in the present case in view of the content of the provisional qualification brief carried out by the Fiscal Ministry, and the particular accusation itself, given the important accrediting obstacle of some of some of some of the essential elements of the bribery, such as the payment of the gift ”.
#National #Court #judge #López #Madrid #hiring #Villarejo #harass #Pinto
