Arrecife local police officer Narciso Pérez has just added his second conviction, this time for a crime of revealing secrets. In the new ruling, dated November 25, the Criminal Court Number 1 of Arrecife imposes a two-year prison sentence and a fine of 3,240 euros for having disseminated in the media, "deliberately and with the intention of violating the privacy of third parties", the content of several emails, "with awareness of the illicit origin of obtaining them and without authorization from the owners".
In addition to the Public Prosecutor's Office, which requested a three-year prison sentence for Narciso Pérez, the three owners of those emails were also involved in the case as private prosecutors, which included consultations between the then-secretary of the City Council, Francisco Javier López, the former Personnel Councilor, Nayra Callero, and one of the lawyers who were defending the Corporation.
"The accused had a dispute with the acting secretary of the City Council and, without a doubt, a bad relationship with the Councilor for Human Resources due to his position", the ruling states, which considers that what he intended with this was to "discredit them". Regarding that dispute with Francisco Javier López, it was the one that gave rise two years ago to the first conviction against Narciso Pérez, for illegitimate interference with the right to honor. That ruling was ratified by the Provincial Court on November 12, imposing the payment of compensation of 12,000 euros to the former secretary, considering it proven that he used "outrageous and offensive expressions" against him in the media.
"He violated professional secrecy between lawyer and client"
In this other criminal procedure that has just been resolved now, the Court considers it proven that this police officer, who was also then a "union or personnel delegate", acted "with the will to reveal, disseminate or transfer those data or facts discovered knowing their illicit origin", that he did so "continuously", because he intervened speaking about them in up to two different radio stations, and that "he also disseminated and violated professional secrecy between lawyer and client".
"We have no doubt that the content of the emails, despite their institutional origin, was of a personal nature, secret and therefore far from general knowledge, protected by a unique, personal and non-transferable access, confidential and therefore belonging to the sphere of privacy of the owner of that email", the ruling states, thus forcefully rejecting the defense's allegations.
And it is that although Narciso Pérez maintained that those emails were institutional and not personal, and that therefore he could publicize them, the Court responds that the fact that they had a content "perhaps professional or legal does not authorize in any way that an outside person communicates, publicizes or disseminates them, because with this he would be violating the secrecy of communications that every person grants in article 18 of the Constitution".
A "striking" and "unbelievable" version
Regarding the way in which Narciso Pérez accessed those emails, the ruling concludes that "it has not been proven how he obtained them". In this regard, he describes as "striking" the version of the accused, who stated that he found them in a container, and concludes that it has no "credibility". "Some garbage collectors, a note left in his locker, by someone who knew his locker in the police station, a note that he destroyed, etc.", the Court relates, recalling the statement he made at the trial.
However, it also considers that it has not been possible to prove the option raised by the prosecution, which maintained that he could access those emails because at that time computer migrations were being carried out in the City Council and "at a certain moment a generic and common key was granted to the users, being able to have accessed said emails through it". Thus, since there is also no evidence that this was the way to obtain them, the ruling condemns him only for the disclosure of its content, and not for having participated in obtaining it.
He communicated it to the authorities "after completing his intention"
Regarding the other crime of which the affected parties accused him, for omission of the duty to prosecute crimes, the Court acquits him for harboring a "reasonable doubt". In this regard, he emphasizes that Narciso Pérez went to the media without having brought what happened to the attention of the authorities, but adds that he did end up communicating it later, "after its dissemination" and after "completing his intention" to "violate the privacy" of those affected.
"We cannot have conclusively proven, with the evidence that a conviction requires, that the accused did not bring to the attention of the authorities the emails obtained illegally and without the knowledge of the owners", he concludes in this regard. Thus, he acquits him of this crime but does condemn him for the crime of revealing secrets, in a ruling against which an appeal can now be filed with the Provincial Court.
It should be remembered that this is the second trial that is held for these same facts, since in its day a hearing was held in the Court, after which an acquittal sentence was issued. However, the Provincial Court later annulled that ruling, due to its "lack of coherence" and "logic" and its "inconsistent reasoning", and ordered a new trial to be held with a new judge. Thus, the trial was repeated again on October 25, giving rise to this conviction sentence that has now been issued.