The Madrid Public Prosecutor’s Office has presented a report in favor of admitting to the processing of the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on behalf of the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, against the judge investigating his wife for corruption crimes before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid. It considers that there is sufficient evidence so that “it cannot be ruled out a priori that the facts are of a criminal nature.”
The letter, signed by the Attorney General of the Madrid Superior Prosecutor’s Office, Almudena Lastra, responds to the complaint filed by Sánchez against Judge Juan Carlos Peinado for crimes of prevarication, in relation to his decision to accept his statement as a witness in person at the Moncloa Palace instead of allowing him to appear in writing, a possibility that the legislation contemplates for members of the Government.
In his report, Lastra points out that in the judgment that imposed the declaration in these terms, “at no time is there any legal motivation, in short, the convenience and usefulness of the diligence or why between the two modalities of appearance provided for in the law, “opt for the one that most exposes the institution that represents the person called to testify.”
“The type of declaration that gives the greatest diffusion to the practice of diligence is chosen without even evaluating the opportunity to carry it out in the manner provided” in the regulation, affirms the prosecution, for whom the resolution of Peinado “can be described as arbitrary and unjust.” in the sense established by the doctrine, that is, for “lack of reasonable legal basis.”
According to him, this “is sufficient so that it cannot be excluded a priori that the facts described are of a criminal nature as they appear in the complaint and that they may be included in the criminal offence invoked”, which is that of prevarication and therefore, the need to admit the complaint for processing and the rest of the considerations that it raises must be analyzed.
“It doesn’t seem like we’re dealing with a simple gap”
“What is really important for the informant is that it does not seem that we are faced with a simple legal divergence that can be resolved within the framework of the procedure through the appeals filed by the higher instance, which is public knowledge,” he said.
He explains that “in this case, in addition to the damage that could be caused to the Administration of Justice in the event that it is proven that an unjust resolution was deliberately adopted by the magistrate and the consequences that a possible revocation by the Provincial Court of the resolution issued could take place in the procedure, the damage caused to the institution headed by the complainant, if the commission of the crime is proven, would be autonomous, since in his capacity as a witness, he is not linked to it.
