The Las Palmas Prosecutor's Office and the State Attorney General's Office have shelved the complaint filed by a large part of the lawyers in the "Reyes case" (which investigates possible criminal offenses in the granting of licenses in Yaiza) against the prosecutor in charge of the case, Ignacio Stampa. The complaints were filed in mid-October of last year.
The facts that motivated the complaint have to do with Stampa's request for information from the Tahíche penitentiary center, which was accepted by the judge in charge of the case, Leticia Mateo. The prosecutor asked the prison to report which lawyers and for what reasons visited the former mayor of Yaiza, José Francisco Reyes, who was in prison, between October and November 2009.
It must be remembered that in this case the Police arrested Reyes, his wife and three of his children for an alleged crime of money laundering, since the investigation found almost 800,000 euros of unjustified origin. Reyes declared in court that four businessmen had given him money to expedite urban licenses, he was sent to provisional prison and later withdrew his confession through a letter.
Reyes even admitted that a lawyer of another defendant visited him in prison and the prosecutor believes that he may have advised him to withdraw his confession, since the change in his statement does not benefit him or his family, given that the evidence against him is overwhelming. In addition, Reyes changed lawyers on that date and the first time he met with him he already gave him the letter in which he withdrew his confession. On the other hand, some of the businessmen named by Reyes knew that he was going to retract before he did.
The result of the prosecutor's request for information was that it was learned that Juana Fernández de las Heras, lawyer and daughter of another of the defendants, Felipe Fernández Camero (who in turn started the case as Reyes' lawyer) had visited Reyes a few days before he withdrew his confession.
Fernández de las Heras alleged, to make her visit to Reyes in prison, interest in another procedure that was already finished (the former mayor is convicted for that case and the appeal has already been filed) and in which her father had acted as defense lawyer in the trial.
Complaint
In the complaint of Fernández de las Heras, to which other lawyers later joined, she says that the prosecutor has not shown due respect to the practice of law. She assures that the prosecutor is based on conjectures and that he ignores facts "deliberately". She describes Stampa's approach as dangerous and says that his "logic" questions the practice of law in general and, in particular, that of those lawyers who are not to his liking.
She refers to the facts as "an extensive invention". She says that in a report by the prosecutor "absolutely intolerable insinuations" are issued and that it is not up to the Public Prosecutor's Office to know whether the visit to any prisoner is pertinent or not. The complaint assures that the prosecutor's action is "inappropriate and enormously unfortunate" and that the diligence is an attack on freedom and professional dignity".
Fernández de las Heras points out that the purpose pursued by Stampa in making said report was to provoke public ridicule and professional discredit using insinuations that he knew were going to acquire greater media diffusion.
Archive
That same month of October in which the complaint was filed, the Las Palmas Prosecutor's Office decided to shelve it, stating that it was not appropriate to adopt any disciplinary measure with the prosecutor and that the writing is not offensive or contrary to any fundamental right, since it does not affect the right of defense but rather it is intended to contribute to the process facts that, together with others, could be configured as indicative to formulate an accusation in its case. It also recalls that the prosecutor's opinion was assumed by the judge in charge of the case and that the lawyer has the possibility of challenging the procedure in question.
In turn, the State Attorney General's Office also decided to archive it through its inspector. He says that in the prosecutor's writing there is no phrase that could be considered offensive, that what the lawyer is expressing is her disagreement with a diligence requested by the prosecutor and admitted by the instructor, and that said diligence was widely justified.
SG/ACN Press
