Luis Lleó's alleged bribery attempt to unblock the construction of the Costa Roja plot has taken the last step this Thursday to go to trial, with the hearing to resolve preliminary issues. The procedure was necessary because this piece of the Unión case will be judged by a popular jury. Thus, the Sixth Section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas, with Salvador Alba as rapporteur, is the one who must resolve before the causes of nullity that Lleó's defense has invoked, which occupy more than 550 pages, and which have not been shared by the other defendant, Fernando Becerra.
In fact, Becerra's lawyer has reiterated during the hearing that his client has acknowledged the facts - that is, that he acted as an intermediary to offer that bribe to Carlos Espino, who was the complainant in the case - and has accepted the penalty that the Prosecutor's Office is asking for him. "I do not intend to criticize Mr. Lleó's defense strategy, but neither can our strategy of confessing and collaborating with Justice be criticized," said the lawyer, who added that this attitude was what "his morals dictated" to his client.
For his part, the prosecutor Javier Ródenas has refuted one by one the alleged causes of nullity raised by Lleó and has done so, among other things, by citing a battery of orders and judgments from all judicial bodies - including the Provincial Court, the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands and the Supreme Court - that have already ruled in favor of the investigation of the Unión case and also the evidence that Lleó intends to invalidate in this piece, including recorded conversations, orders and documents. As for the other party in this procedure, the popular accusation represented by the association of Jurists Jiménez de Asúa, the Public Prosecutor's Office considers that this hearing has served to "take off the mask".
An accusation that "gives the reason" to the defense
"Now we will see if he really exercises the accusation. We might take off his mask," said prosecutor Javier Ródenas, before it was the turn of the lawyer of Jiménez de Asúa, José Antonio Zambrano. And when this turn has come, all that Zambrano has done has been to reply to the prosecutor and give the reason, at least "in part", to Lleó's lawyer. "Being honest, we understand that there is some reason in what the defense has raised," said the lawyer of the popular "accusation", who has referred in particular to one of the alleged causes of nullity alleged by Lleó.
What Luis Lleó and the Jiménez de Asúa association agree on questioning is that the investigating judge signed an order extending telephone interceptions when he was on vacation. This argument, which has been described as "absurd" by the prosecutor, was used by this same association to file a complaint against Judge César Romero Pamparacuatro before the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, but it was not even admitted for processing.
As the prosecutor has recalled, the TSJC pointed out that Romero Pamparacuatro was not "just another citizen" but "the investigating judge" and that, therefore, he still had the competence to act in the case even if he was on vacation. In this regard, Ródenas has cited jurisprudence from the Malaya case as a precedent for cases in which a magistrate applies a "strict control" over a complex procedure to avoid leaks.
"Why can't a resolution be signed while on leave, because an accused of a crime of bribery says so?" the prosecutor asked. "Is it null because afterwards he didn't say: look, I haven't been able to enjoy it, because I had to make an order, so don't count that leave?" he insisted. But in addition, he stressed that he considers it "incompatible" that Jiménez de Asúa filed that complaint and, in turn, "today paradoxically sits on the side of the Public Prosecutor's Office", supposedly acting as a popular accusation against Lleó.
Did not present his own indictment
For his part, the lawyer of the controversial association has begun by describing the prosecutor's statement as "surprising" and the "affirmation" about "taking off the mask" as "unfortunate". Thus, he has defended that the association, which was not even officially constituted when it began to try to enter the Unión case, is currently involved "in 30 cases". And according to his lawyer, they have "nothing to do" with Luis Lleó and Fernando Becerra. In this regard, it should be recalled that one of the lawyers who has intervened on behalf of this association, Juan David García Pazos, began as Lleó's lawyer, whom he represented at least in a hearing at the beginning of this case.
As for his role as an accuser in this piece of Unión, he has pointed out that at the time he adhered to the writing presented by the Public Prosecutor's Office, that is, he did not present his own indictment, nor did he add anything to that of the Prosecutor's Office. And in the hearing this Thursday, prior to the trial, he has limited himself to giving Lleó the reason in one of the alleged causes of nullity that he requests.
"I do not know, if he estimates any nullity, what its consequence would be in the process," said the lawyer of the association, addressing Judge Salvador Alba. The rest of his brief intervention has been dedicated to continue defending the complaint they filed against the investigating judge of Unión, stating that the inadmissibility of that complaint is not yet final, since they appealed the order. "If it becomes final, this association withdraws," he said.
Next, the magistrate has given the floor again to the prosecutor, who had reserved the possibility of intervening again depending on what the attitude of the popular "accusation" was. "Even the reasoning he gives is a juggling act," replied Javier Ródenas, who has insisted that it is "incompatible" for someone to exercise the popular accusation in a case after having filed a complaint against the judge who investigated it.
In addition to having acted against Pamparacuatro, this same association tried to remove Judge Silvia Muñoz from the case. In fact, it was the first thing he did when he managed to enter one of the pieces, after having seen his first attempt rejected. In that case, the challenge he raised was not only rejected, but the Provincial Court also imposed a fine on him, considering that he acted with procedural "bad faith". For its part, the Public Prosecutor's Office has been warning at least since 2015 that this association could be trying to enter the case as a "Trojan horse" with "illegitimate interests".