The first day of the trial for the payment of invoices for work allegedly not performed for Francisco Rodríguez Batllori has come to an end this Thursday with the testimony of four of the six defendants (the other two will do so this Friday), after the Provincial Court decided to reject the request to suspend the hearing.
The request had been made by five of the six defendants, alleging alleged defenselessness and violation of fundamental and constitutional rights. However, after an hour and a half recess, the Court has rejected suspending the hearing and has determined that the rest of the preliminary issues raised during the morning by the defenses, which have even requested the annulment of all actions, will be resolved when the sentence is issued.
Upon resuming the session, the testimony of the defendants began, although for the moment only one of them has answered all the questions. It was the former Finance Councilor of Arrecife, José Miguel Rodríguez, who during the investigation had already confessed to the acts he is accused of and has even returned the allegedly embezzled money. During the trial, he ratified his confession and assured that he authorized payments to Batllori for work that he had not actually performed, complying with orders from Dimas Martín.
Next came the turn of the former Councilor for Human Resources of Arrecife, Luisa Blanco, the former director of Inalsa, Plácida Guerra, and the former manager of Inalsa, Rafael Elorrieta. And all three have decided to exercise their right not to testify, answering only questions from their lawyer.
Dozens of unanswered questions
Even so, prosecutor Javier Ródenas has been asking one by one the questions he had planned for them, while the defendants remained silent. They have not even spoken to defend themselves. In the case of Luisa Blanco, she has refused to answer even the lawyer of Dimas Martín, who has asked her if what José Miguel Rodríguez had previously declared was "true or manifestly false".
Despite the fact that in that statement, Rodríguez has directly implicated Luisa Blanco, stating that she authorized payments to Batllori despite knowing that he had not performed any work for the City Council, the former councilor has not responded to that question or denied her former colleague.
For his part, in his long list of questions that have not found an answer, the prosecutor has referred to a previous statement in the Court of Luisa Blanco, in which she stated that Batllori had advised her on whether the police should wear gloves. "Did you authorize the payment of more than 7,000 euros for telling you if the police should wear gloves?", the prosecutor has asked her, while the former councilor continued to remain silent.
When it was the turn of questions from her lawyer, Luisa Blanco broke her silence and stated that despite being a Councilor for Human Resources she did not have "delegated powers", that her job consisted of "labor approaches", in attending to "complaints from workers" and in "bureaucratic work", but that even the payrolls that were made in her department were signed by the mayor and that she did not make "hiring".
A lawyer who "did not go to lawsuits"
Regarding the alleged hiring of Rodríguez Batllori to advise her department, she has stated that she limited herself to conveying to the Finance Councilor the need to have a labor lawyer in Human Resources. "I did not tell him to be Batllori, only that I needed someone", she has declared, assuring that it was José Miguel Rodríguez who sent her this lawyer.
What she has not clarified (because her lawyer has not asked her and she has refused to answer the prosecutor's questions) is what work Batllori exactly performed in the City Council. In this regard, Luisa Blanco has limited herself to saying that she held meetings with her and with a technician from the area. "A few times, I don't remember exactly", she has replied to her lawyer, when she has asked her how many times they met.
Then, she has explained that if they ended up dispensing with his services it was because Batllori "did not go to lawsuits" and they decided to hire another lawyer. A statement that contrasts with the version given by José Miguel Rodríguez, who assures that all the councilors of the PIL decided that invoices should no longer be paid to Rodríguez Batllori because he was not really providing any service to the City Council. During the investigation and on the first day of the trial it has been clear that there was no signed contract, and there is also no document, report or paper that proves the alleged advice.
