The declaration of four of the witnesses who have appeared in the trial of piece 13 of the Unión case has been marked by their indictment in another procedure, the Montecarlo case. The prosecutor, Ignacio Stampa, who is the same in both cases, has been making that warning with each of these witnesses, to prevent their answers from interfering later with their defense. And it is that as witnesses they are obliged to answer all the questions and to tell the truth, at the risk of incurring a crime otherwise, and as defendants they are not.
The first warning has come with the mayor of Arrecife, José Montelongo, who has come on behalf of the City Council, which is present in the case as a private accusation. The City Council demands that the accused return the 250,000 euros allegedly embezzled with the payments to the businessman José Daniel Hernández Arráez and his company, Proselan. "Given the procedural situation of the witness, I am only going to ask if, as a City Council, they claim the amount stolen," the prosecutor began, who transferred the warning to the rest of the lawyers.
However, after Montelongo confirmed that the City Council claims that money and that the questions from the City Council's lawyer were allowed, the prosecutor interrupted the interrogation. "The witness is charged with a similar case for the payment of services not provided," Stampa recalled, who also stressed that the City Council's lawyer, Orlando Betancort, is the same one who represents the City Council in the Montecarlo case, where the institution is also present as an accusation. "He is asking things that he has also been asked in the other case. They are the same dates, the Carnival, with another company (Inelcon). It is exactly the same," the prosecutor insisted, before which the lawyer decided to withdraw the question.
The City Council claims the allegedly embezzled money
What José Montelongo has explained is that in 2009, shortly after he entered the City Council, occupying at that time the Department of Sports, they were summoned to a Governing Board "because Festivities, Roads and Works had detected some invoices that could have some type of irregularity", according to two technical reports. "What was that irregularity?", one of the judges of the Chamber has asked him. "Of works that may not have been provided, I want to remember", he replied.
In the past legislature, after stopping the payment of another four invoices from José Daniel Hernández in 2009, the City Council denounced the facts and then appeared as an accusation in this and other pieces of the Unión case. Afterwards, he also did the same in another subsequent case, the Montecarlo case, where the mayor is now charged.
Three other witnesses charged in Montecarlo
The same scene as with Montelongo has been repeated later with the treasurer of the City Council, Antonio Cabrera Panasco, since the prosecutor has recalled that this official is also charged in the Montecarlo case. And although he has explained that in the case of the treasurer, "the file of the indictment is pending resolution", which has been requested by the Prosecutor's Office, Stampa has insisted that his right to defense be guaranteed in the other case, avoiding questions that could interfere.
As he did with Montelongo, the president of the Chamber has then authorized the witness not to answer any question if he considered that it could affect his defense in the other procedure, although this has not been the case. And the same thing happened shortly after with the businessman Carlos Lemes, owner of Inelcon. "Is it true that you are charged in another case?", the judge has asked him, to which Lemes has replied that yes, although he has stated that he "does not remember" for what crimes.
The warning has been repeated a fourth time, when the declaration of the coordinator of Festivities of Arrecife, José Nieves, arrived. "I think it's the last one," the prosecutor began, before repeating the same warning as with the other three witnesses. In the case of the official, he also did not remember for what crimes he is charged in the Montecarlo case. "For signing invoices", he replied when the judge asked him if he could explain at least what the facts were.
