The Provincial Court of Las Palmas has rejected the last attempt to avoid prison by the former secretary of the Yaiza City Council, Vicente Bartolomé Fuentes, who must enter prison to serve the sentence imposed on him in the Yate case, for the massive granting of illegal licenses in the municipality. Given that the sentence was one year in prison, the former secretary asked for its execution to be suspended, but his request was rejected in an order issued on April 20. Now, what has been dismissed is the appeal he filed against that order.
In the new resolution, against which no appeal is possible, the Second Section of the Court underlines the previous convictions that weighed on Bartolomé Fuentes and also the "seriousness" of the crimes for which he was convicted in this case. "The excessive constructions contrary to urban planning regulations caused an alteration of the territory to the detriment of all citizens," the order states, which points out that the former secretary's actions caused "irreparable damage to the municipality."
In this regard, the order recalls that the sentence, also issued after reaching an agreement with the Prosecutor's Office and acknowledging the facts that were imputed to him, condemned him for having issued reports as secretary, under the Mayoralty of José Francisco Reyes, "knowing of their manifest illegality, contributing decisively to the final dictation of the decrees granting licenses by the mayor, promoting with his manifestly illegal action a total alteration of the urban reality of the municipality of Yaiza, since hotel constructions and buildings were authorized without any legal basis other than the mayor's whim."
He confessed that he knew that Marina Rubicón and the Playa Blanca Plan were illegal
In addition, it underlines that this account of proven facts of the sentence "was recognized as true by Vicente Jesús Bartolomé Fuentes himself." Regarding one of the allegations that he has used later to avoid prison, the Court points out that "it is true that on some occasions the mayor acted against the criteria" of the former secretary, but points out that "he has not been convicted for such cases" and therefore it is not for them that he must answer.
Specifically, Vicente Bartolomé Fuentes confessed to having committed a crime of prevarication by reporting in favor of two projects that he knew were illegal: the Playa Blanca Partial Plan and the Marina Rubicón marina. And he also acknowledged having contributed to embezzling public funds from the City Council, by having allowed the former mayor's private trips to be paid for with money from the Yaiza City Council.
"These are crimes committed by public officials, in what is called political corruption, which, as we said in the appealed order, represent one of the most devastating attacks that can be inflicted on a democratic society, not only from a quantitative point of view: for the economic damage they produce, but also qualitative: by undermining, to the point of almost dissolving, the very principles on which it is based," the Court points out, which questions that Bartolomé Fuentes' defense made no reference in its appeal to the "seriousness of the events" for which he was convicted.
Four convictions behind him
In addition, this also adds the risk of recidivism. And it is that although Bartolomé Fuentes was already removed from his position as secretary of Yaiza by a previous conviction, he is currently still working for the public administration, specifically in the Cabildo of Gran Canaria. "The possibility of committing new crimes is latent, not only because of his status as an active official currently, and because in that capacity he committed the crimes of the three convictions that weigh on him, although one of them is not final, but also because he has a fourth conviction for a crime against road safety, which would prove the criminal variety that the convicted person here practices," the order underlines.
In addition, it points out that the former secretary's appeal referred to "a series of circumstances that in no way affect the possibility or not of suspending the execution of the sentence." In this regard, it points out that the fact that he recognized the facts during the trial "already led to a reduction in the penalties imposed."
Regarding the payment of civil liability, in addition to underlining the "small amount referred to in the appeal", it points out that "it cannot be described as an 'effort'." And neither the payment of the fine, "because otherwise it would entail the deprivation of liberty of one day of prison for every two unpaid installments." Finally, regarding the fact that he expressed "the will for social and labor integration", the Court considers that "it is a mere expression of intentions by someone who has been convicted on several occasions, for different types of crimes."
