The secretary of the Yaiza Town Hall, Vicente Bartolomé Fuentes, and the municipal technical architect, Pablo Carrasco Cabrera, have once again been convicted of a continuing crime of urban planning malfeasance. The sentence of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas, which imposes on each the payment of a fine of 8,640 euros and seven years of disqualification, considers it proven that both issued favorable reports for the construction of nine chalets located on a plot between Las Breñas and Femés, knowing that it was rustic land and could not be built on.
The same sentence acquits two others of the accused in this case, the former mayor of Yaiza, José Francisco Reyes, and the municipal building surveyor Alfredo Morales. In the case of Reyes, the sentence considers that there is not enough evidence for his conviction. During the trial, the former mayor stated that "of the pile of papers that" they "put in front of him", "he read some and not others", and that of the reports he decided to read, randomly, he only did so with the first paragraphs.
In the sentence, the Provincial Court emphasizes that Reyes was mayor of the municipality between 1994 and 2007 and councilor since 1983, and therefore he should "know beyond any reasonable doubt what was the general urban planning situation of his municipality". However, in the specific case of the licenses granted for the nine homes in Las Breñas, the Court argues that it harbors "doubts" about whether Reyes had "real knowledge" of the illegality of the decrees he signed. And it is that in this case, he had favorable reports for the granting of licenses, precisely from the technicians who sat on the bench next to him.
In any case, the sentence also adds that the accusation against Reyes was "justified" and that there are indications that suggest that he granted the licenses "knowingly" of their illegality, since there were even reports from the secretary warning that it was necessary to request a compatibility report with the PIOT from the Cabildo. However, it considers that the principle of "in dubio pro reo" should prevail. That is, in case of doubt, favor the accused.
José Francisco Reyes already has a final conviction for malfeasance, also for granting a license on rustic land, since in that case it was proven that he had received multiple warnings about its illegality before granting it. In addition, he must still return to the stand with City Hall technicians in other trials. The most important one, the one that investigates the alleged existence of a plot for the massive granting of illegal licenses in Playa Blanca, in which he is also charged along with Vicente Bartolomé Fuentes and Pablo Carrasco, as well as other technicians, businessmen, relatives and lawyers, including the one who represented him in this case, Felipe Fernández Camero.
Formal flaws
Another building surveyor of the City Hall, Alfredo Morales, has also been acquitted in the sentence. About him, the sentence points out that he made his favorable reports based on "a municipal planning that was not definitively approved or officially published, with awareness and willingness not to put any inconvenience to the mayor so that he would authorize the action for which the license was requested".
In addition, it adds that he gave the green light to a segregation of the property into several plots that violated the regulations, and that he should have had authorization from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of the Canary Islands.
However, the sentence acquits him of the crime of malfeasance, not because it has not been proven, but because of a formal flaw during the judicial procedure. And it is that Morales was the last defendant to join the case, when the investigation phase had already been closed, and shortly before a firm accusation was made and the oral trial was opened, undermining his right as a defendant "to actively participate in the investigation".
"Guarantor of legality"
Regarding Vicente Bartolomé Fuentes, the sentence emphasizes that as secretary of the City Hall, he should be the "guarantor of legality" and, however, "failed in his legal duty". During the trial, Bartolomé Fuentes pointed out that he limited himself to issuing "processing reports", but the sentence argues that it is evident that he issued a legal opinion in the reports.
In addition, it emphasizes that it is "significant" that in one of them he referred to the need to request a compatibility report from the Cabildo "if the planning in force was not adapted to the PIOT", and "then in the remaining reports it is evident how the phrase related precisely to said requirement disappears". In this regard, the Court adds that Bartolomé Fuentes did not give during the trial "any minimally reasonable explanation about such elimination".
"Very particular interpretation"
As for Pablo Carrasco Cabrera, who has been acquitted of the crime of document forgery and convicted of the crime of continued urban planning malfeasance, the sentence argues that "with a very particular interpretation of the urban planning regulations", he literally described the land in his reports as "plots", that is, urban land for consolidation, despite being "aware of what was the true nature of the same", that is, "rustic land".
As in the previous trial in which he was convicted of malfeasance, Carrasco argued in his defense that he has no legal knowledge and that he did not use the term "plot" with that intention, but the sentence considers that this "is not in accordance with the purpose and category of his report".
In addition, it emphasizes that during the trial, Carrasco incurred in "certain contradictions", since at one point he pointed out that "at no time did he indicate" during the processing of the license "that the land was urban" and, however, "and despite relying on his ignorance of legal issues, (during the trial) he later stated with some force that the land was urban".
For Vicente Bartolomé Fuentes and Pablo Carrasco, this is already the second conviction for crimes against land management. The previous one was issued less than a month ago, in this case by the Criminal Court Number 1 of Arrecife. That sentence imposed on each a sentence of four months in prison and another of special disqualification for employment or public office for a period of two years and one month. However, both still continue in their positions in the City Hall. The mayoress, Gladys Acuña, alleges that the sentence is not final and that the "presumption of innocence" still applies.
RELATED DOCUMENTS
[See the full text of the Provincial Court's ruling->63250]