The prosecutor’s office criticizes the fact that the defendants of the work of ‘Púnica’ in León try to obstruct the start of the trial

The former president of the Diputación de León denounces an investigation “to seesaw, with back and forth”


The prosecution criticized the fact that those accused of the alleged online reputation work that the “Punic” conspiracy would have led to León tried to obstruct the start of the trial which began this Thursday in the National Court with the introduction of a series of previous issues in which they denounce alleged rights violations.

“It gives us the feeling that the defense is trying to prevent us from going to court,” said prosecutor Carmen García Cerdá, who, together with her public prosecutor colleague, María Teresa Gálvez, has been responsible for responding to all complaints. formulated by the lawyers throughout the four hours that lasted this hearing which should last, at least, until the beginning of December.

One of the issues that received the most attention was the request of the lawyer of the alleged successor of “Púnica”, Alejandro de Pedro, who insisted that the statement of his defendant be made at the end of the trial , right after the proof was presented in plenary.

This request, to which most of the lawyers adhered, was supported by the public prosecutor, who did not object in this regard. However, the court has announced that it will not rule until next Monday, when the hearing will resume, when it will also answer the rest of the previous questions.

It should be recalled that this possibility, that of allowing the defendants to intervene at the end of the trial, has just been applied during the hearing which is also being held before the National High Court against the mixed economy company DEFEX and its former commercial director for allegedly irregular contracts in Cameroon. .


Another of the complaints that has also been unanimous among the lawyers is that the prosecution has provided, coinciding with the start of the trial, a series of documents corresponding to other elements of the “Punic” macro-cause to which the rest lawyers do not have access to it.

Prosecutors, for their part, assured that they have “tried to ensure that the documentation, testimony and reports” dictated are incorporated into the main exhibit “to avoid the absence of a defence”. “As a first premise, all the defenses that are here had and have access to this main element”, they argued, defending that the prosecutor’s office “was very careful that all parties could access the information “.

On the other hand, the defense of the former president of the Diputación de León Martín Marcos Martínez — who is facing a request for 8 years in prison, the heaviest sentence required — invoked an alleged violation of the right to effective judicial protection this would have occurred throughout the investigation, which was led by the central investigating court number 6.

In this regard, his lawyer criticized the fact that the contents of the seized devices were not transferred to De Pedro and the companies that would have carried out the reputation work: Eico Online and Madiva Editorial. “It did not happen like that with the prosecution, which had at its disposal at all times the content of all the questions dealt with in the investigation, which meant the violation of the principle of equality of arms”, he argued. .

But, in addition, Marcos’ defense pointed to an alleged “violation of the right of defense by the very manner” in which the investigation was conducted. “It is not a linear instruction, but a jigsaw with back and forth. Requests are made by the parties which remain pending and without being resolved, the judge moves on to the next phase”, a- he declared.


For his part, De Pedro’s lawyer – for whom the Public Prosecutor’s Office requires 5 and a half years in prison – alleged an alleged violation of the right to a trial without undue delay, recalling that the case had started in 2014. “In 2016 , had passed to us in abbreviated procedure, in 2018 the indictment of the prosecution and the order to open an oral trial. And here we are, in November 2022,” he lamented.

The prosecution, however, claimed that if the future of this separate piece of “Púnica” was delayed, it was for “some reason or because of the enormous amount of resources” that the parties would have presented.

De Pedro’s own lawyer, who also represents the said Eico and Madiva, pointed out that there has also been a violation of the adversarial principle insofar as the fact attributed to him was not contained in the act of indictment of the two legal persons. “Or, if it is considered that they are instrumental enterprises, a resolution should be pronounced on the non-imputability or the insanctionability of these”, he added.

The lawyer of Pedro Vicente Sánchez, who was coordinator of the press office of the Diputación and is now mayor of Puebla de Lillo with an independent party, reported an alleged violation of the right to effective judicial protection, pointing out that in the he transformation order of the judge included new facts of imputation while this first writ was already firm.


In addition, he proposed the provision of a series of documents in which it would be proven that the aforementioned post of coordinator of the press office from which he allegedly committed the crimes for which he is being asked for seven years in prison never exist. “The supposed concert of my headmaster because he was the right arm of the presidents of the Provincial Council, which we believe is not the case,” he added.

Regarding these allegations, the prosecution stressed that in complex proceedings, as is the case, it is necessary “to go to trial to provide evidence and that the court becomes aware” of the existence or not of the violations previously invoked. “It is only by listening to the accused and the witnesses that this can be resolved,” argued one of the prosecutors.

In this first session, the lawyer for the former mayor of Cartagena José Antonio Alonso Conesa – who faces five and a half years in prison – asked to provide a series of documentary evidence, among which invoices that would prove what billing was he made with the companies he worked with.

According to the account of the prosecutor’s office, De Pedro and Conesa himself had worked since 2010 for different public administrations and jointly controlled a group of companies with which they applied for public contracts, “many of them with objects simulated”.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *