National Court Judge Manuel García Castellón, who is presiding over the “Punica case,” on Tuesday agreed to temporarily handle the case of former Community Education Minister of Madrid Lucia Figari, on the understanding that no crime had been committed. He was duly acquitted of the crimes he was accused of.
García Castellón’s resolution, which Europa Press had access to, comes within the 10th separate section, which investigated certain awards to companies related to the alleged “acquisition” of the “Punica” plot with Alejandro de Pedro.
The order is the judge’s response to a decision by the Criminal Chamber of the National Court last week, when he ordered García Castellón to drop former “popular” councilors Lucia Figari and Manuel Perez as defendants, in addition to two others, given that they were being investigated as part of an improper investigation.
In October of last year, the Púnica instructor issued a summary plea order against eight people under Section B of the Madrid PP Box. García Castellón has attended nearly every post in the anti-corruption prosecutor’s office, which reduced charges against 79 people to just eight in July. The two original prosecutors in the case, Carmen García Cerda and María Teresa Gálvez, refused to sign the indictment with such a discount, leaving it only to be signed by Alejandro Caballeiro, the latter who joined the investigation at the behest of the chief prosecutor. Anti-corruption, Alejandro Luzon.
One of the people against whom the charges were denied was the former president of Madrid, Esperanza Aguirre, who saw how her subjects stood up for the bench. The discrepancy between the anti-corruption and García Castellón arose from Salvador Victoria, against whom the public ministry appreciated the evidence of guilt, but the judge did not. Now, the Criminal Division agrees with the judge and leaves Victoria out.
It is difficult to give his conduct a criminal form, because even if it is a temporary and only an instructional stage, the next step will be to formalize a criminal case under certain weak conditions,” the chamber magistrates said about Salvador. Victoria in last week’s car
As for Lúcia Figar, Manuel Pérez Gómez, Luis Sánchez Álvarez and Pablo Balbín Seco, the Fourth Section ruled that they should be investigated again, but apportioned the blame between the judge and the anti-corruption agency. The judges reasoned that this is within the scope of section 10 “where the evidence is made”, but the judge’s error was “caused” by the prosecution’s earlier erroneous mention. “It is surprising that now the prosecutor’s office does not realize the involvement of these people,” the chamber added. Part 10 of the Púnica refers to contracts from the Madrid administration and computer expert Alejandro de Pedro, which are financed with public money, even though they dedicate themselves to the reputation of politicians and PP officials.
Now, García Castellón reiterates that he must agree to Figar’s submission because “the summary investigation did not allow us to prove that the services contracted by the Ministry of Education to the companies EICO/MADIVA – Alejandro de Pedro – had exclusively. The praise of an individual, Lucia Figari, as if it were an entity separate from his position, or an institution that he represented as a member of the Community Government of Madrid.”
García Castellón also agrees to the Section 10 dismissal of ex-advisor Manuel Pérez Sánchez, ex-Madrid Foundation director Luis Sánchez and former Figar chief of staff Pablo Balbini. He also presented files to the former popular mayor of Alcobendas, Ignacio García de Viñuesa, and his communications director, Maria Teresa Alonso-Majagranzas.
Magistrate Figar said in his order to explain the case that the use of companies outside the administration to improve the image of public officials “is a common practice in all areas of administration.”
And, accordingly, cites the expert opinion provided by the procedural representative of the former adviser, which indicates that “today there are clear examples of actions aimed at promoting the image of public representatives through institutional advertising campaigns, directly or in an overlapping way.”
Thus, he adds, it is not for his court “to make moral judgments, nor to assess the feasibility, appropriateness or necessity of this type of publicity, but to examine whether the facts at trial satisfy, by reference, the elements.” accused types of crimes”.
He recalls that in this case, from the procedures carried out, it is not confirmed that the reports entrusted to the De Pedro EICO and Madiva companies were limited only to the publicity of Figar’s image, “because it is impossible to distinguish one from the other. position and the person who holds it”.
In addition, regarding the possible simulation or lack of real content of the accounts of the companies ‘Víctor Steinberg y Asociados SL’, Redytel Ingenieria de Telecomunicaciones SL and Nunkyworld SL, the judge asserts that, contrary to the prosecution’s thesis, he believes that the services entrusted to these merchants “provided was” and differentiated in content from the EICO and MADIVA reports.
In this sense, he also indicates that with another investigated contract, the so-called Regarding “Educational Madrid”, he does not believe that there was any falsification. “Proceedings at the judicial headquarters allow us to prove that the contract was performed without the tendering of a ‘small contract’ being sufficient to sustain the imputation.”
The judge understands that the contract tender’s minor status may be an administrative matter, “but it cannot be the basis for criminal charges.”
Thus, the judge emphasizes that “the supervision of the actions of the public administration in the exercise of its authority does not fall within the scope of criminal law, to conclude that the signing of contracts with the aforementioned trading companies, even when it may be controversial, they are not inclined to participate in the crime of prevarication.”
He adds that the commissioned work was carried out and that there is no evidence that there is any element that allows us to talk about embezzlement, because it was not properly justified that the commissioned work was of an exclusively personal nature, since the person investigated held a public institutional position.
Source: El Diario
