The Supreme Court agrees with deputy Casero (PP) and says that the investigation of his case ended in July 2022

Everything investigated since then is null and the instructor should not take it into account when deciding whether to file or continue against it.

MADRID, 3 Mar. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court has agreed with the PP deputy Alberto Casero and has estimated that the period of the investigation, in which certain agreements and service contracts are studied that he carried out in 2017 and 2018 when he was mayor of Trujillo for alleged crimes of prevarication and embezzlement, concluded on July 15, 2022, so the proceedings agreed upon by the instructor subsequently should not be taken into account.

This is stated in an order of the Appeals Chamber of the High Court, to which Europa Press has had access, in which they add that this decision does not affect the request that the instructor, magistrate Andrés Palomo, once urged.

The court thus accepts the thesis of Casero's defense, which indicated in a first appeal filed in December 2022 that the period of the investigation had started on July 14, 2021 since the Court of First Instance and Instruction number 2 of Trujillo agree by order the initiation of the procedure.

Thus, taking into account that article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Law (LECrim) indicates that the investigation of criminal proceedings will take place within a maximum period of twelve months from the initiation of the case, they pointed out that on July 14, 2022 the term would have expired. "Therefore, it is necessary for this instructor to declare null and void all the proceedings carried out since then," the defense then reasoned.

In view of this, the instructor took up the opinion of the Prosecutor's Office, which pointed out that the term could not be expected to start counting from the start of the procedure in Trujillo, because when it went to the Supreme Court, since Casero was registered, it was "two different procedures, that are initiated and processed, where appropriate, before different judicial bodies and that may even take a parallel procedural route".

Palomo, in January 2023, indicated that "in any case, in the case file, it is not necessary to dispense with any diligence, not even for the purposes of the imputation trial, since the period of one year established in article 324 LECrim, has not elapsed " . And he pointed out that the investigation against Casero started in the High Court because "there are no possible actions against a senator or deputy that were not agreed upon by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court."

"It is not possible to speak of proceedings against deputies and senators, outside of this Second Chamber. Even, from a strict dimension, it would not fit, but from the moment the request was granted," he explained.

After this decision, Casero's defense filed an appeal in the High Court, who now points out in his order that what is being tried to elucidate in this matter is "whether the investigation began when the investigating court initiated criminal proceedings that later sent by reasoned exposure to the Supreme Court or began when this Chamber initiated investigative proceedings against the appraiser".

He points out that the succession between the two cases, the one filed in the Trujillo Court, in which he is considered a defendant, and the one followed before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court once jurisdiction for prosecution was admitted, "obviously it is not a succession produced by virtue of an accumulation of causes, which would give rise to the initiation of a new cause, with two, or more, diverse procedural objects that have been the object of accumulation".

In fact, it stands out that in the present case against Casero "there is a single object" that is none other than "to purify the responsibility regarding some specific facts of the mayor of Trujillo and appraised before this Chamber." Therefore, it understands that the start day in the computation of the term "is the start of the investigation of a procedural object delimited in the complaint against a specific and determined person, against whom the complaint is directed and the process is initiated. criminal investigation".

And it adds that this complaint comes from the Public Ministry on July 14, 2021. "According to the above, having not proceeded to extend the term prior to a declaration of complexity, the working time for action and investigation actions ceased on July 15, 2022," he explains.

Therefore, it considers that the proceedings after that date, "carried out outside the preclusive period established by law for carrying out acts of judicial investigation, must be separated from the process and will not serve to make the decision on the continuation of the proceedings" . He agrees that the investigating magistrate does not take them into account to adopt the resolutions that he deems appropriate and that are related to continuing the procedure or archiving it.

However, the court adds that the proceedings linked to the request and those referring to the statement of the person investigated are excluded from the agreement. "It is an authorization for the judicial investigation of that graduate and, therefore, it is left out of the investigative proceedings," he says.

It was in March 2022 when the Supreme Court decided to open a case against Casero after the Trujillo court ruled in his favor. Then, in eight pages, the court reviewed the reasoned statement of the Trujillo court, which opened preliminary proceedings by virtue of a complaint from the Prosecutor's Office regarding certain contracts, agreements or agreements entered into in 2017 and 2018 by Casero --when he was mayor of the locality-- with third parties.

According to the documentary and testimonial evidence provided by the court, there are solid indications that the aforementioned contracting acts were carried out by Casero without subjecting himself to the administrative procedure provided for it, for which reason, in his opinion, he undertook to pay various amounts without notifying the City Hall and without the necessary reports.

The court pointed out, in turn, that in March 2017 he hired a psychologist hiding it from the City Council, without providing the contract, without a contract file, without a report on the need for the service and without approval of the expense.

In September 2017, he signed a contract with the president of the Peruvian Chamber of Commerce in Spain committing the City Council to pay 25,000 euros, without notifying the economic and legal services of the City Council, without the agreement being previously approved and without submit it to public information or be published in the BOE.

That same year, Casero verbally agreed to contribute 18,000 euros to an event organized by the Bon Vivant Cultural Association, without following any procedure and without informing the City Council services. In June 2018, he signed a sponsorship contract with the same association committing himself to the contribution of 18,000 euros, also assuming other costs, without following any contracting procedure.

The reasoned exposition also included two other facts. A contract in 2018 with the company Icaro Consultores en Comunicación, SLU, for the organization of an event for an amount of 14,303 euros plus VAT, without informing the competent services and without following the proper procedure. And another contract, from that same year, with Radio Interior SL --a communication and promotional services contract for the Trujillo Cheese Fair-- for an amount greater than 15,000 euros, resorting to the minor contract procedure when, due to the amount, should be tendered in an open procedure.