A poorly written sentence has caused two alleged drug traffickers to be released from the prison sentence that had been imposed on them in the Court of Seville. They had been sentenced for allegedly having marijuana for sale in their home. But according to the Diario de Sevilla, the sentence in question stated that the homes of the defendants had been searched and that “the following” had been found in them. Without specifying anything else.
For judicial purposes, since the ruling does not explain what they found, it turns out as if no drugs had been found, so those investigated have been acquitted.
The beneficiaries of this decision of the Superior Court of Justice are the members of the Pollino clan, who murdered a man, his partner and their six-year-old daughter in September 2017.
The initial sentence explained that the investigation began after the seizure of four grams of cocaine and two of heroin from a person who confessed to having acquired it at the home of one of the defendants, specifically at the home of Antonio G.H., known as ‘Pataslargas’ and brother of Ricardo G.H., ‘el Pollino’.
The Judicial Police tried to locate other drug trafficking points in Cerro Blanco, Dos Hermanas, and verified that some people, “known to the agents as drug users,” were entering that and other homes.
By intercepting several buyers, they searched the home of Juan H.H., cousin of those accused of murder, and José Manuel G.S. As the Sevillian newspaper points out, the sentence ends by saying that “in the judicially authorized records on June 4, 2018, the following was found:”.
Despite the insufficient wording, the Court imposed two years and one day in jail on Juan H.H. and a fine of 4,081 euros (replaceable by ten more days in prison), while José Manuel G.S. He was sentenced to one year in prison and the payment of a fine of 48,647.5 euros (replaceable by thirty days in jail).
Given the ruling, José Manuel’s defense appealed to the TSJA and raised the right to the presumption of innocence due to the absence of proven facts that would specify that he had committed a crime.
The magistrates acknowledge that “it is clear that the narration of events was cut off due to an error or other dysfunction, either in the wording or in the transcription of the sentence.” This “anomaly” could have been corrected “at the right time”, either ex officio by the Third Section itself or at the request of the Prosecutor’s Office. But it was not done. “It cannot be considered that a defect of this level and importance can be minimized as a simple manifest material error that can be corrected at any time,” determines the TSJA.
The TSJA ends by clarifying that the “insufficiency” of proven facts “cannot be admitted” when the sentence lacks “a total absence of narrative” regarding an alleged crime.
