The judicial battle between Rocío Carrasco and Antonio David Flores has come to an end. This Tuesday, we learned, thanks to the media Informalia, that the Supreme Court had decided to archive the complaint filed by Rocío Jurado’s daughter against her husband more than two decades ago for an alleged crime of continued psychological abuse.
According to the aforementioned media, the judges have determined that there is no evidence to support Rocío Carrasco’s version and that there would be no possibility of appealing or reopening the case. This judicial decision has been a great blow for the singer’s daughter, who has been trying to get the support of justice for years.
The complaint was filed by Rocío Carrasco in 2017 and at that time it was provisionally dismissed. But a year later, in 2018, a judge ordered the procedure to be reopened, although for a short period of time, since Justice accepted the subsequent appeal presented by Antonio David. For this reason, the complaint was again dismissed, this time confirmed by the Supreme Court.
This Tuesday, November 28, there has been movement related to the case again, since five years later, a period established by law to keep the case on ”pause”, in the absence of new evidence and testimonies that support the accusations, the judges have decided to definitively close the case.
In this way, the former civil guard has achieved a legal victory in court against the mother of his children, after she presented the testimony she made in the famous documentary Rocío, tell the truth to stay alive, a space in which she exposed publicly the mistreatment she suffered during her relationship with the former civil guard. But the appeal was not enough to reconsider a case that was never admitted for processing.
Despite this hard blow for Rocío Carrasco, the judicial war between the former couple has not ended. And both still have a pending case for an alleged crime of asset seizure with which Antonio David Flores could be sentenced to four years in prison. According to Rocío Carrasco, the father of his children would have carried out ”illegal” maneuvers to hide that he had enough capital to pay the 60,000 euros that he owed in support of his children between 2011 and 2013. .
