The architect and construction manager of the Stratvs winery, Miguel Ángel Armas Matallana, signed the final certificate upon completion of construction "without measuring", because it "seemed" to him that the project was executed "as he had said". This is what he stated in his last statement in the Stratvs case, in which he is charged with a crime against the territory and the environment and will also have to answer for two alleged crimes of document forgery. And it is that the architect, who was also the owner of a good part of the land where Juan Francisco Rosa built the winery, signed two official certificates about this construction that had nothing to do with reality.
Both in the new construction certificate of 2005 and in the completion certificate of 2008, Armas stated that what was built was a 900-square-meter warehouse-cellar, when the truth is that the cellar alone has an area of more than 2,500 square meters, according to expert reports. And to that we must add the restaurant and the rest of the facilities that complete the complex, which in total has more than 12,000 square meters. And all this was done with a license to restore a pre-existing protected house (which according to the investigation was demolished to build a new, larger one) and to build a 900-meter warehouse.
"I thought the meters were real and I didn't check the measurement," Armas declared in court. According to him, "it seems that there are a couple of meters too many", but he denies that they are "many", despite the reports indicating that what was built only in the winery triples what was authorized. "Since there is height, a mezzanine was made," he added. Regarding the restaurant and the rest of the complex, which he did not reflect in his construction certificates, the architect tries to disassociate himself, assuring that he only directed the works of the winery and the house.
"Rosa told me that was his thing"
"I didn't participate in anything in the restaurant", the architect assured, despite the fact that this work was done at the same time, and is also in the middle of the complex. "I saw that another building was being built, but it was not my responsibility," declared Miguel Ángel Armas, who was also the owner of a good part of the land where Stratvs was built. According to his statement, "sometime" he asked Juan Francisco Rosa about that work, but he told him "that was his thing". "That was separate, I didn't intervene in that," he insisted.
The difference is important, because Rosa himself acknowledged in court that he didn't even have or had requested a license for the restaurant. In fact, he stated that "the restaurant was not within the project" that he presented when requesting permits and admitted that he "was aware" that he executed it without a license. And did he know that this land is in a specially protected natural area? "No," replied Juan Francisco Rosa, despite the fact that the winery is in the heart of La Geria, and despite the fact that the Stratvs website itself highlighted the "landscape value" of the place where it was built and its "condition as a protected natural area".
The architect and construction manager also stated that "he did not know that the space (of which he was the owner) was specially protected". "I thought it was rustic land and nothing more," he declared. In his opinion, "the license is requested and the City Council is the one that has to monitor if it is a protected space". However, in the case of the restaurant, that license was not even requested and, as for the rest, what was built did not conform in anything to what was authorized (which on the other hand, according to the investigation, should not even have been authorized).
Two "identical" but totally different certificates
In his statement, the architect alleged that "he was not on top of the work continuously" and Juan Francisco Rosa stated the same, who stated that "Miguel Ángel Armas rarely went to the work". In addition, the two tried to separate the works of the winery from those of the restaurant, assuring that the former were completed in 2005. They even maintained that the architect signed the certificate of completed work that year.
Why then is there a certificate of completed work dated 2008, also signed by Armas Matallana? According to the architect, "it was a lapse". In that year he was "asked to have the certificate endorsed by the College of Architects" and he put the date of that moment. "I should have put that it was finished in 2005, but the two certificates are identical, except for the date," he alleged.
However, when the prosecutor showed him the two certificates, the architect had to recognize other essential differences. Above all, that one says "new construction deed" and, in the other, "completed construction deed". That is, one is from the beginning of the execution (usual to request a loan, as Rosa apparently did), and the other is the one that certifies the end of the work. And in both, what is described has nothing to do with what was done. In addition, the exact location in which the construction is located is not specified, which later led to the fact that in different documents it was stated that Stratvs is in another different farm, where there is really nothing built.
Without contract and with memory lapses
In his statement, the architect said he did not remember "why Juan Francisco Rosa asked him for the new certificate of 2008". He also did not know if the businessman requested a loan, nor did he remember when the works were completed or when the winery was inaugurated. He didn't even remember what the budget was for the work he directed. Regarding whether that budget varied with respect to what was initially projected, Armas also said he did not know, although he detailed that "many times the budget is put below the price" ("I don't have the head to remember if the project was 150,000 euros", Rosa responded for his part).
In addition, the architect does not even remember if he signed a contract with Juan Francisco Rosa for this work. "Normally a contract is made, but in this case I don't remember if it was made", he declared, adding later that he "believes" that "there was no contract with Rosa" and that "it may be that due to trust it was not signed". What he does maintain is that he only charged for the project, and not for the direction of the work, despite the fact that according to the certificate he signed and his statement in court, it was his responsibility.
What he insisted on repeatedly, even when asked by his lawyer, is that his work ended in 2005, despite the fact that it was in 2008 when the winery was inaugurated together with the rest of the facilities, and when he signed the certificate of completed work.
