The magistrate of the Supreme Court Andrés Palomo has demanded that the Criminal Chamber go to the Congress of Deputies to request the request to proceed criminally against the PP deputy Alberto Casero Ávila, upon appreciating against him rational evidence of alleged crimes of prevarication and embezzlement, for certain agreements and service contracts that he made when he was mayor of Trujillo (Cáceres), in 2017 and 2018.
Casero is known for mistakenly voting in favor of the government's labor reform, which allowed its final approval. The PP, with then Pablo Casado in charge, assured that there was a computer error because, according to his explanations, Casero had voted electronically no to the validation of the labor reform, but his vote was counted as a yes.
In the opinion of the instructor, from what has been done, essentially through the testimony sent from the Court of First Instance and Instruction number 2 of Trujillo (Cáceres), there are rational indications of criminality against the parliamentarian, which would lead to the continuation of the procedures of the abbreviated procedure, which, as it involves a formal indictment, requires prior authorization from the Congress of Deputies, in accordance with its presentation.
The document that is submitted to the Criminal Chamber for submission to Congress includes these indications that Casero, in his capacity as mayor of the Trujillo City Council, in March 2017 and December 2018, agreed with different people and entities, service contracts, sponsorship or agreements, "failing to comply with all types of formality required for this purpose by the applicable regulations in each case", as explained by the exhibition, which specifies that his story must be understood as merely indicative and provisional, without being both to consider it as a factual affirmation verified by evidence, an affirmation that could only be made once the oral trial has been held.
According to the instructor, "the various episodes of the behavior reported, resulting from the aforementioned well-founded evidence, not only involves repeated and admitted administrative irregularities, but also a way of proceeding by the judge who identifies his voluntarism regardless of any interpretation with a loophole of rationality of the legal system; with verbal contracting prohibited or without any processing or advertising in the cases where the amount required it, circumvention of the control mechanisms, direct assumption of payments for the integrity of the services that, in addition to newspapers, were provided to an entity in which the municipality only it was a part; fully subsumable in the crime of prevarication”.
"Consequently - adds the judge - also the facts that have been considered circumstantially accredited may constitute a crime of embezzlement (...) as they also reveal, having exceeded their powers of administration of the assets of the City Council causing real damage to it. , whose amount, at this point in time, would exceed 50,000 euros, in relation to those payments that did not compete with the City Council or were made for services not provided.
On the other hand, the magistrate has issued an order in which he rejects the file of the case requested by the PP deputy, considering that the effective investigation of behaviors likely to be integrated into crimes of prevarication and embezzlement is necessary.
