In the coming weeks we will know the opening date of the trial against MarÃa Patiño after the lawsuit for libel filed by Antonio David Flores after some statements by the journalist as presenter of the Socialité program where she pointed to the former civil guard as responsible for hanging himself some posters indicating him as an abuser and pointing out that she herself had seen the video images and that they confirmed it.
As La Vanguardia reported exclusively this Wednesday, and despite the fact that the Telecinco communicator appealed in the initial phase of the judicial process before the court and the Provincial Court, her actions were dismissed and the investigating court 34 of Madrid agreed in an order dated April 14, the opening of the oral trial for a crime of Insult made with publicity.
In that judicial document, as this medium also advanced, the investigating judge, when agreeing to the opening of the oral trial, established as a precautionary measure the provision of a bond of 120,000 euros, granting the defendant, that is, Maria Patiño, a Within 1 day from the date you are personally notified to perform such provision under penalty of seizure of your assets in sufficient quantity to secure the indicated amount.
From La Vanguardia we have contacted MarÃa Patiño’s lawyer, Ricardo Ibáñez, hours after the Sálvame journalist assured on her social networks that the information published by this newspaper and that referred to her person was “false”. However, the lawyer has made it clear in this conversation with the media that “I have never said that La Vanguardia lied.”
Ibáñez has expressed his discomfort at what he considers “an interested leak” of the court order, the content of which he does not deny at any time, but warns that his client is not going to deposit the bail that the judge is demanding, considering that the amount set is “absurd and exorbitantâ€: “We are going to wait for the end of the oral hearingâ€.
MarÃa Patiño’s lawyer has expressed the utmost confidence that her client will be acquitted once the judicial process is over, and points to the defense of Antonio David Flores, considering that “they are misrepresenting information for their own benefit, in addition to pointing out the guilt of MarÃa Patiño without any judge having ruled for nowâ€.
Regarding the amount requested by the defense of the former civil guard, he expresses himself in these terms: “He can ask for whatever he wants, something else is what will happen”, appealing that he will not make any more statements until the hearing is over oral.
According to solvency legal sources verified by this medium, the next step in MarÃa Patiño’s procedural strategy, according to the words of her lawyer, would be to file an appeal to discuss the origin of the bail and the amount, since as It is evident in the order that was made known through this medium, not paying that amount would imply “the seizure of their assets in sufficient quantity to secure the indicated amount.” That is, 120,000 euros.
It must be borne in mind that the orders for opening an oral hearing cannot be appealed, but some courts do admit an appeal regarding precautionary measures. This is a reform appeal that must be resolved by the same judge who agreed to open the oral hearing.
The bail filed by the judge is required by the need to block that money in the court account precisely to guarantee and insure the civil responsibilities that, ultimately, could be imposed from that judicial process that will begin in the coming weeks. If the defendant does not want to pay that amount, she can only rely on a legal procedure such as the aforementioned appeal if she wants to avoid having personal property seized for the value of that amount.
