The Seville court rejected the request formulated by the parents of Marta del Castillo to clarify the sentence that acquitted Francisco Javier García, known as El Cuco, convicted of covering up the crime in 2009, and his mother, of the crime of perjury for which the Seventh Criminal Court initially convicted them to two years in prison, for his statements during the trial held in 2011 against the adults accused of this crime.
The lawyer for the parents of Martha del CastilloInmaculada Torres, had presented a document in which she requested the first section of the hearing a “complement” to your judicial resolution, where it was stipulated that the two accused had admitted in the trial held against them by the Criminal Court number seven both the facts contained in the indictment of the Prosecutor and the facts contained in the indictments of the family as accusation private and the association Victims and Justice as a popular accusation.
In this sense, the First Section explains in its order that “It was the lawyers of the accused who did not object not to read the private indictment document, which was repeatedly requested by his defense, because the facts were the same as those of the public prosecutor, and with this his defense assumed the two indictment documents”, although that “as Although the private accusation The document was not read in plenary session, which means that it was not included in the proven facts, without prejudice to the fact that this point was “indicated” later in the sentence.
An “irrelevant” aspect
“This is why it is not appropriate to complete the proven facts in the sense that interests the party,” declares the first section of the Court in the order to which laSexta had access, emphasizing that not considered “relevant” for the subject of this petition.
In the same sense, when the representation of Marta del Castillo’s parents insisted on the fact that the accused “recognized the facts contained in the provisional conclusions of the private accusation and the popular accusation”, the Court alleges same way as “The sentence echoes this recognition of the facts and defense counsel’s insistence that his brief had been read”, but “these circumstances should not be included in the proven facts because although the private and popular prosecution briefs coincide for the essential with those of the prosecution, there was No reading of these, and the fact that they were assumed by the defense of the accused, we consider that they should be the subject of the resolution of the merits and not proven facts.
In the sentence of acquittal, according to the Court, “express as fallacious facts those recognized and reflected in writing accusation of the Prosecutor’s Office which they assumed and which included the resolution and assumed as proven the sentence of the instance (of the Criminal Court) and which coincides in substance with those of the other accusations, explaining the essence of the error, in which proceeded to deduce testimonies against the accused (el Cuco) for his statements made during the oral trial, after having denied having been at the home of Miguel Carcaño on the evening of January 24 (2009), and for having said that this that afternoon, he was with friends at times they had denied, going home around 11:30 p.m., while his mother saw him around 1:30 or 2 a.m. on January 25.”
The recognized facts
“SO, It is not appropriate to supplement the proven facts by adding the recognized facts by the accused, as the party is interested, including those of the decision of the lower court to the extent that they are undisputed facts, since we do not consider such a statement relevant”, answers the first section.
And regarding the replacement of the paragraph of the sentence where it appears that Cuco “acknowledged the facts that were read to him, those of the Prosecutor’s Office, and not those of the private and popular accusations, despite the fact that the Defense lawyer asked for it.” although in substance, except with regard to civil liability”; The Court considers that these are “drafting nuances which should not be made, because there is no obscure concept or need to complete it”, because they are not “relevant” either.
The specific situation of the Cuckoo
Furthermore, in its brief, the representation of Marta del Castillo’s parents requested that in the sentence an alleged “error” has been corrected regarding the description of Cuco’s situation when he testified during the trial held in 2011 against the adults accused of this crime, which resulted in the conviction of Carcaño alone.
In detail, the representation of Marta’s family requested that it be reflected that at that time Francisco Javier García “finished completing” the measure imposed by the juvenile court to conceal the crime, he had already satisfied to the closed detention regime and, consequently, What he said in this court would not affect him.
“We do not know what type of error the party is referring to, since the one that the accused declared while he was free is perfectly seen in the recorded images of the trial held in the Seventh Section, attached to the file, and This is the information that we wanted to highlight, as well as the minor appeal sentence a few days ago which had been notified to his lawyer by the court during his testimony as a witness, so these are the significant data for the issue of the resolution, and which appear in the documentary evidence existing in the case”, responds the first section, which It detects “no errors to correct”.
This is why the court decides that “no clarification can be made to the sentence pronounced, whether in the form of correction or addition in the sense provided, because it does not appreciate any obscure notion, nor any omission or rectification of no involuntary element. material or arithmetic error, nor complete it.
At the time of his acquittal, despite the accused’s acknowledgment of the facts, the first section of the Court indicated that Cuco “he must necessarily be called as a witness in the case of the elderly”, but specifying that “we are not dealing with a typical witness, since he is no longer a co-accused, nor an accused, since a final sentence has been pronounced for similar facts against him, but, by virtue of the Plenary Assembly, he is cited as a witness.
On the other hand, he indicated that his mother “did not mislead” to the court in his statement, because “the falsity of the statement must relate to aspects essential to the purposes of the prosecution and not to matters of no consequence”, which “is what happens to the accused”.
